The First Chapter of Genesis as the Rock Foundation for Science and Religion

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

:.bv Google

I

/t/L.-t-^-lu^jP.

logic

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

THE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS

AS THE ROCK FOUNDATION

FOR SCIENCE AND

RELIGION

:.bvGoogIe

:.bv Google

CHAPTER I

The Cosmogony of Genesis and That of Science
is the Same

BEFORE consideriog the oonteots of this mar-
velloos cliapter it may be well to stop for a
moment upon ttie popular conception concern-
ing the ancient cosmologies.
Without dwelling upon the ideas of the Babylonians,
Egyptians, the Indians and others, it is desirable here to
mention only the supposed cosmology of the ancient
Hebrews.

The most erroneous ideas are attributed io the sacred
writers from such poetic expressions as ' ' Hast thou with
him spread out the sky which is strong and as a molten
looking glass T"

Some think that this passage proves that Job thought
that the sky was something like a brass vessel inverted
overhead and scoured bright like an ancient mirror.
This is one of a few passages upon which is based the
idea of the ignorance of the ancients. But as opposed to
this we quote again from Job (26:7, 8) "He stretcheth
out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth
upon nothing. He bindetb up the waters in his thick
clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them."

A little farther on in the same chapter (V. 13) he says
"By his spirit be hath garnished the heavens; his hand
hath formed the crooked serpent." In this he refers to
the constellation, the Dragon. He speaks also of other
constellations. Speaking of God he says, "Which maketh
ArcturuB, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the
south. ' ' Again, ' ' Canst thou bind the sweet influences of
IT

:.bv Google

18 Genegis, Foundation for Science and Religion

the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion t Oanst thou
bring forth Mazzaroth in his season 1 or canst thou ^de
Arctorus with his sonst"

The constellations as we now have them were known
and named hundreds if not thouaands of years before the
time of Moses. There is evidence that the constellations
were already divided and named in the time of Enoch.
Cassini commences his history of astronomy by saying
" it is impossible to doubt that astronomy was invented
from the beginning of the world." Sir William Drum-
mond says, "the fact is certain that at some remote
period there were mathematicians and astronomers who
knew that the son is the center of our system and that
the earth, itself a planet, revolved around It."

In a recent article on Progressive Astronomy we read
that Chaldea, Egypt, China, India, the Incas, the Aztecs,
the Druids — all ancient peoples, back to prehistoric times,
have observed the stars. The zodiac, or sun's path
among the stars each year, the phases of the moon, the
fixed constellations and wanderii^ comets, the eclipses
of the sun and moon and the conjunction of the planets
were all known before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees.
Archaeologists have discovered, in Babylonia, multiplica-
tion tables as tiigb, at least, as 1300, which were used,
as Hilprecht observes, as we use logarithms and in
astronomical calculations. It is very probable that the
ancients knew as much about astronomy as we should
know today without instruments.

The great pyramid of Egypt was built more than 600
years before the time of Moses, but an astronomer, taking
a hint from that, calculated the distance of the sun
within 270 miles of the results of the most accurate
observations and calculations of the 19tb century. The

.tvGooglf

Oeneais, Foundation for Science and Beiigion 19

builders of that pTramid knew the distance to the sun
and left a record of their knowledge. Prof. Newcomb
is right in the declaration that not enough credit has been
given the ancient astronomers. There is no time within
the scope of history when it was not known that the
earth is a sphere.

As compared with the science of astronomy the book
of Genesis is a recent work, and aside from any inspira-
tion Moses was "Learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians." Egypt, at that time, was the seat of the
world's learning.

I have glanced at some of these facts to establish as
antecedent probability that Moses knew something of
what he was writing aboat even aside from any inspira-
tion from on high.

There is reason, however, to believe that the original
revelation concemii^ the creation was made to mankind
ages before the time of Moses. The grotesque forms the
story afterward assumed was the result of changes made
by men who thought that they were too wise to accept it
in its form as given, and so they modified it to suit their
own wisdom.

Beginning now with the chapter, I pass over the first
declaration, In the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth, and pass to the condition of matter thus
created.

The earth was "tohu," "bohu." These words are
variously translated, as "without form," "void," or as
Young defines them "emptiness," "vacancy."

There are probably no words in the Hebrew language
that could more aecorately define what science for the
past 100 years declares to have been the primordial con-
dition of the material compoaii^ onr solar system. There

U.,r,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

20 Qanttis, Foundation for Sdmcs and Baligitm

is eveiy reason to believe that the writer used those words
knowingly, and that he meant to convey the idea that it
was in a very eomminnted, dissipated form, not reipon-
sive to the sense of touch.

Without donbt this was the original condition of mat-
ter and if it were created in that form and then left to
the operation of "natural law" as we should say, and
physical forces, every phenomenon that scientista have
since observed or proven to exist, would have followed
in natural order and without further miraculous inter-
vention. Further than this, there has been left recorded
in nature the Divine plan and the Divine mode of opera-
tion.

Assuming, then, as a working hypothesis, that this was
the first form of matter and that then it was left to the
operations of natural law and physical forces, some
things may be affirmed with certainty.

I. The nebulas must have been extremely tenuous. A
moment's calculation would show that if it extended to
the outmost known limits of our system it must have been
at least 10,000 times as thin as common air at sea level It
must have existed as gas, vapor or dust. Gas is a form of
matter whose particles seem to have the power of affect-
ing other particles without actual contact as shown by
sound and light. Vapor is a liquid in a state of minute
Bublivision and duat is a solid in the same condition. The
nebula must have existed as one or more of these forma
of matter. Above the temperature of 312 below zero, air
exists as a gas. At that temperature it exists as a liquid,
and perhaps at interstellar or absolute cold it would exist
as a solid, and in nebula would be extremely comminuted.
If this be true of air it certainly would be true of those

U,:,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeHgion 21

forms of matter that liquefy and solidify at modi higher
temperatures.

II. The nebula may have been either cold or hot
The supposition used to be that it must have been

originally at a temperatore that would be required to
return the Eiystem to that condition of tenuity. That
assumption, however, is not essential to the theory. The
eoncoBsion of condensation near the close of the process
of star formation would produce more heat than there are
traces of at present. If the temperature were originally
very high, the nebula would have cooled with great
rapidity, according to the law of radiation, from each
separate particle with little hindrance by surromid-
ing particles, rather than according to the law for the
cooling of liquids or solids, in which heat must pass
by conduction from the interior parts -with radiation
only from the surface. This is shown by the almost
instantaneous cooling of gases formed by explosive com-
pounds, in which the loss of heat is almost instantaneous.
It is thus that the super-heated nebula would cool The
higher the temperature, the more rapid would be the
process of cooling and the super-incumbent gases or
other substances, though great in volume, would be
so exceedingly tenuous as to offer but little resistance
to radiation. If original^'' cold, as noted above, heat
would be produced by the concussion of contraction uid
toward the close of the process of star formation the
amount would be very great In either case contraction
could so proceed as to form a stellar system like our own.

III. Whatever its condition it must have been very
much more dense toward the center. This must have
been the case, at least when it existed within the boun-
daries of tha present i^nstem. This eondunon is neceoaiy

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

22 Genesis, PouTidation for Science and Beligton

from the sizes of the planets. If the mass had been of
equal density througbont, and Uranus and Neptune had
taken their share of the material tiiey woold have taken
from three-fonrthfi to seven-e^hts of all the matter in
the solar system — % if the nebola was diskoid, % if
spherical. It was probably spheroidal as shown by the
satellites of Uranus and Neptone. Instead, however, of
having even % of the matter in the system, the sim itself
contains nearly 10,000 times as much as they both com-
bined. The nebula then must have been indefinitely more
dense in its central than in its external portions.

IT. It must have rotated upon its axis — at least its
external portions, in about the same time that Neptune
revolves around the sun. When it had contracted to the
orbit of Uranus it must have increased its rate of rota-
tion to that of the planet Uranus in its orbit. And so of
all. As it contracted, its rate of rotations must have
increased so as to equal, successively, the orbital velocities
of Saturn, Jupiter and so on. The orbital velocity of
Neptune is about 3U miles per second, that of Uranus
about 4H miles per second. Contraction must have pro-
ceeded at such a rate as to have produced that increase
in orbital motion.

v. It then becomes a very easy problem to ascertain
the rate of contraction as it is simp^ one of reimltant
motion.

In the diagrun, Fig. 1, if, say, a body were moving
along the line a & at a rate of 20 miles per hour and some
other force should drive it along the line a <f at a rate of
10 miles per hour it would take the direction a c and its
rate could easily be determined. So its impulse along
the line a d conid be found if iti rate along a c were
known and the impulse along the Une a h. It would be

L ,l,z<..t,C00gIf

:f, Google

:.bv Google

^•iMMf, Fowndtiion for Sm«iu4 and S^igion 3B

Bimply the square root ot a c square miniu a b sqiure.
The aame would be true if the linea a&, ac and ed were
curved. This is the case under oonsideratioiL The
orbital velocit}^ of each interior planet is the reonltant
of the rate of velocity of the planet next exterior and the
rate of contraction.*

The rule for determining this is, From the square of
the veloeil? of any interior planet, subtract the square of
the velocity of the one next exterior and the square root
of the remainder will be the rate of contraction. Apply-
ing this rule we find that the time for contracting from
Neptune to Mercuiy is a little less than 25 years.

YI. Objections to this view of rapid contraction.

1st. It is generally thought that if the solar system
once existed as a nebula extending to Neptune it must
have t^en millions or billions of years to contract. But
this long period is based upon the assumption that radia-
tion was never more rapid than it is at present from the
sua. This could not have been the case. It is not con-
ceivable that with a surface area 36,000,000 times the sur-
face of the sun, and a volume 216,000,000,000 times that
of the sun, and with its outer portions millions of times
as tenuous as air, that it should lose heat only at the same
rate that the sun now does.

The fact that gaaes do cool with great rapidity is con-
stant^ demonstrated. The loud report occasioned by
ezplosives has been mentioned. Cases also have been
known in which the walls of buildii^ have been blown
outward near magazine explosions. When the building
has stood far enough away not to be destroyed by the
explosion and yet near enough to be influenced by it,

'See appendix (a).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

26 Oenetit, Foundation for Seienct and BtUffion

the instantaneous cooling of auper-heated gas has created
a partial vacuum and the air inside of the building has
expanded in conseqnence with sufficient force to cause
the walls to fall outward. The most signal illustration
of this occurred in the explosive eruption of Mt, Pelee
in Martinique. Immense quantities of super-heated
steam or other gases displaced the air and, instantly
cooling, the bodies of men burst as if instantaneously
placed in vacuum. Super-heated gases cool with great
rapidity.

Besides, there is hardly a possibility that the elements
were in a gaseous state when they reached the present
limits of the solar system. There is hardly a probability
otherwise than that they existed as attenuated vapor and
dust perhaps at an interstellar temperature.

For a further discussion of this subject see the author's
Suborganic Evolution.

VII, The thickness of the rings most have been such
that by the contraction they would produce the satellites
and the axial rotation of the planets. The thicker the
ring or mass, the more rapid the resulting rotation and,
of course, the larger the planet, as per Kirkwood's law.
The great rapidity, for example, of Jupiter's rotation is
owing to the greatness of its mass, which extended far
beyond its present position, and the outside portions
moved with a velocity proportional to its distance. As it
contracted the angular velocity would increase, while
the actual velocity would also be increased by resultant
motion. A seeming difficulty in applying, this principle
to Jupiter's rotation only accentuates the rapidly with
which that planet assembled its elements, owing to the
greatness of its mass.

Till. The nebular masses forming the planets could

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oetum, Foundation for Sdenee and BeUgion 27

not have bees of nnifonn denai^ throoglioat. If they
had been, the tendency would have been to form meteoric
dost or meteorites, like the rings of Saturn.

IX. The original nebular mass muBt have been inter-
Bperaed with uebolar densities that formed the eenters of
the varioufi planets and satellites.*

X. The contraction of the whole mass from the ex-
terior could not have been oontinnous, owing to the mnch
greater density at the center. This occasioned the rup-
ture between Jupiter and Mars, the fragments produced
by the rupture forming the planetoids. The orbits of
these bodies confirm this idea, particularly by the greater
ellipticity of those nearer the sun. These having less
motion than those more remote, while they would require
a greater motion, necessarily * move in more eccentric
orbits, their positions at the moment of separation beii^
aphelion.

XI. While the deposition of planetary nebula must
have been very rapid, the sssembling of planetary ele-
ments must have been very stow, as each planetary mass
could have bad only the attractive power of its own mass
for assembling its parts. No figures can be made to even
approximate the time, for so much depends upon the un-
known qnantities of dispersion, size and position of
nuclear density, its physical condition and so on.

XII. Fragments detached from the main masses at
any part of the process form meteorites revolving in
dUiptical orbits aronnd the Sun.

XIII. The interior planets may be older, as planets,
than the exterior ones, aa from the increased density
of their nebnlar masses the work of assembling would be

*See appendix (b).

U.,r,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

28 Genesis, Fowndation for Science and Religion

relatively more rapid ; still conditiona ocknown to ns may
have existed.

THE FORMATION OF THE SON

We pass to consider the formation of the Sun. 1st. Al-
though this is formed of the residue of matter after the
planetary nebulae had been deposited — ^its power to
assemble its constituent elements being so great owing to
its comparative density, its great mass, its slight disper-
sion and so on — it is by far the oldest body, as such, in the
solar system. If the material composing it had been of
perfectly uniform tenuity and not gaseous, after deposit-
ing Mercury its contraction would have been in accord-
ance with the law r^:ulating the motion of a body falling
through the earth, considering the earth of uniform den-
sity throughout. The force actii^ upon each portion
would be in proportion to its distance from the center.
As a pendulum vibrates through a larger or smaller sec-
tion of its arc in the same time, so portions of the Sun 's
dispersed mass would begin movement toward the center,
at rates calculated to bring them all to the center at the
same time. Particles a mile from the center would move
toward the center with a velocity only sufficient to make
them reach the center at the same time that portions
millions of miles from the center would.* Theoretically
all would be moving at rates proportional to their dis-
tances and all so as to reach the center at the same time.
In this case, it would seem that the angolar motions of
the parts would have been practically uniform, and there
would have been little tendency for other portions to flow
around the interior portion except as the actual velocities
of the outer portions were increased by resultant motion.

'Appendix (c).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

&nttia, Foundation for Sdmce and Religion 29

Even if the mass had been of nnifomi density when ex-
tending to the orbit of Mercory, there would have been
some tendency for outer portions to increase the ^tngni^t-
motion of rotation and flow around the portions within.
But this tendency would have been indefinitely increased
by the fact that, as we have seen, it was very much more
dense in its central portions. This tendency must have
been increased, too, if there had been any gaseous ele-
ments in its composition. In any event, precipitation
would have b^un very early and probably had begun
-when the outside planetary masses were left This nu-
cleus, if rotating on its axis at all, wonld have rotated
very slowly, not more rapidly than the whole mass, or once
in a year of Neptune, probably not so fast as that. Then
as each layer of matter was deposited on the outside it
would be moving not only with a greater angular but with
a greater actual velocity, and every layer would flow
around that within so that had no motion been imparted
to the inner portions by the parts outside, we should have
the center of the Sun revolving on its axis but once, per-
haps, in a hundred and fifty or more years, while the out-
side would be revolving with a much h^her velocity than
at its present rate. Of course, if precipitation did not
begin at the center of Ae Sun until after Mercury was
left, still the core would have revolved on its axis only
once in a year of Mercory or not so rapidly as that. Then
as precipitation continued, each outer portion would
have flowed around the parts interior to itself.

In figure 2, (facing page 22), suppose the whole body
to be revolving with uniform motion. S, the core of the
Sun, revolves in one of Mercury's years, and a point as
A performs its revolution in the same time. It is
evident that as A is twice as far from the center as it,

L ,l,z<..t,C00gIf

30 Gtnefis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion

it would have jiut twice the actual though the same
auflrular velocity as one at M. But when by contraction it
reaches M, it will have twice the angular velocity it had
at A even if its actual velocity had not been increased by
resultant motion. In other words it would run around
parts interior. This waa the ease during the whole pro-
cess of the sun's formation. The outside portions con-
tinaally flowed around the inner portions already formed.
A remnant of this phenomenon still appears in what ia
called the equatorial acceleration of the sun's rotation.
It is, however, transient and will soon disappear. It was
thus that the present writer accounted for this pheno-
menon within a half hour after learning of its existence
and eighteen months before reading of the calculations
of Professor Sampson. Professor Sampson 's calculations,
however, confirmed in a very satisfactory luid conclusive
wi^ the correctness of the author 's own conclusions.

But the phenomenon presents itself in a very much
more wonderful way and with much more conclusive
proof as to its origin, In the planet Jupiter, and to a less
extent in Saturn. Professor Charles A. Young in his
text-book on astronomy observes : — ' ' The planet rotates
on its axis in about nine hours and fifty-five minutea. The
time can on^ be given approximately, not because it is
difficult to find and observe distinct markings on the
planet's surface, bat simply because different results are
obtained from difEerent parts according to their nature
and their distance from the planet's equator. Speaking
general^, spots near the equator indicate a shorter day
than those in h^her latitudes, and certain small, sharply
defined, bright, white spots, such as are often seen, give
a quicker rotation than the dark markings in the same
Utitoda."

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oeneais, Foundation for Science and Religion 31

EvetytluDK in this exactly accords with secewary
results if the planet were formed by contraction from a
lai^er rerolving gaseous spheroid or nebulous mass. As
condensation proceeded, the outside portions, revolving
not only with a greater angular but with a greater actual
velocity, would flow around the portions already formed.
The outside portions, which bear the small white spota,
being partially, at least, transparent, reveal the more
slowly moving portions within. The great red spot was
an island or huge mountain peak pushed up by internal
forces above the superincumbent and more rapidly mov-
ing Uo'ers.*

The rotation near the equator is also more rapid than
near the poles. If the planet had been diskoidal the
phenomemm would have been much more apparent. But
it is snfiftcient^ spheroidal to mc&e plainly apparent the
method of its formation.

This view of the cause of equatorial acceleration is still
more wonderfully confirmed by the facta contained in a
note to the article quoted above.

"According to Williams there are at least nine 'belts'
of atmrnpheric current on Jnpiter clearly distinct from
each other. The swiftest, at the equator, has a rotation
period of only nine hours, fifty minutes, twenty seconds,
while that of the slowest is nine hours and fif ty-aix min-
utes. The great red spot has given values ranging from
9 brs. 55 min. 34.9 sec. (in 1879) to 9 hrs. 55 min. 40.7
seconds (in 1886), and 9 hrs. 55 min. 41.4 sec. (in 1896).
The increase has been unmistakable and has not been dne
to any nncertainty in the observations." f

*See appendix (d).

1 6«ural AttMUOoqr— Yomif.

t,CoogIf

32 Oenetii, Foundation for Science and SeUgion

The nine belts of rotation spoken of are not neceosarily
slLarply defined and distinct from each other, but grad-
ually merge into each other.

The most remarkable thing in connection with this
whole Bnbject ia the rapid diminution of relative velocity
of rotation, or slowing of the outside portions as their
momentum is imparted to the portions interior. Note
what is said of the "great red spot" and observe that
there was a diminution in velocity of rotation of about six
seconds in the 7 years from 79 to '86 while the dimination
amounted to -^ of a second in the ten years from '66
to '96. This indicates the rapidly approaching end of
inequality of rotation, or the time when the out«r portions
will have communicated enough of their own motion to
the interior to make the whole rotate with the same
angular velocity that the earth and all the smaller planets
now do.

Observe the statement "The increase has been un-
mistakable and is not due to any inaccuracy in the ob-
servations."

The same phenomena once presented themselves in all
the planets, probably, that are large enough to have
passed from a nebulous through a liquid condition to
their present condition. They may present themselves in
Uranus and Neptune, but telescopes may not be suffi-
ciently powerful to detect them. It is exceedingly for-
tunate that they were detected in Jupiter before they
finally disappeared, thus hiding forever one of the bright-
est pages in the history of star formation.

These observations are made in this place because so
immediately connected with the subject of the equatorial
acceleration of the Son's rotation.

Continuing with reference to the Son, 2d, this eqoa-

DolizccbyGoOgle

Qmegis, Foundation for Science and Religion 33

torial current would by friction produce aome lieat but a
quantity very small in proportion to ita expenditure. Dr.
Meyer calculated that a force sufficient to entirely stop
the Son's rotation would produce only heat enough to last
the Sun 185 years.

3d. Precipitation at first would have proceeded very
slowly. Not so slowly as in the case of the planets but
still slowly.

This will appear if we consider (a) the mass as com-
posed of dust or vapor. In this case, according to the
law of pendulum vibration, parts near the center would
move very slowly towards the center. For example:
particles one mUe from the center would have only a
sphere of gas or vapor two miles in diameter to draw
them towards the center, and in the condition of dust or
vapor their motion woiild not be hastened by pressure of
portions outside them. If we suppose (b) that it were
gaseous, energy of compression would develop sufficient
heat to matoriaUy retard precipitation.

But there is really no reason to suppose that the
nebula 's temperature was much above that of inter HBtellar
space. In that case not enough heat could be produced
in the earlier stages of condensation to have produced
luminosity. For example, when the nucleus of the Sun
was a ball a mile in diameter Its attractive power was but
its present power at its surface divided by its diameter —
800,000. At present the Sun's attraction would cause a
body to fall 444 feet per second. When a mile in diameter,
even if its density were the same as now, it would have
attracted matter toward it at the rate of ^"* or
.000555 of a foot per second. Very littie heat could be
produced by that rate of motion. The center of the Sun
may now be oomparativdy cold and solid, not yet having

DolizccbyGoPgle

34 Genuit, Foundation for Sdenoe and BeUgion

become superheated by conduction from its outer portion,
as the motion from the outer portions hss not yet been
fully oonununieated to the interior.' The same may be
true and probably is of the earth 'a interior. It may be
cold and solid to near the surface, where there is a thin
layer of molten matter over which is the cold outside
layer.

4th. The temperature would increase with the increase
in size of the forming body. The lai^er it became, the
greater would be its power of attraction, drawing more
matter to itaelf in a given time and giving each portion a
greater kinetic effect.

The precipitation of nebular densities would produce
seasons of greater luminosity. Generally the period of
greatest luminosity would have been towards the close
of its formation period. Some variable stars may be
accounted for in this way.f They are still formii^. To
illustrate, consider a possible contingency in the forma-
tion of onr own system. If the nebulous masses that
formed the planets of our own system had not been mov-
ing with snfficient velocity to prevent it, each one would
have been precipitated upon the Sun, successively pro-
ducii^ seasons of greater luminosity until the outmost
one had fallen upon the sun.

In this case the seasons of greater luminosity would
have succeeded each other with but short intervals: The
inter-stellar spaces, however, are so vast that a distant
sun may have its brilliancy increased by the precipitation
of nebular masses or stellar bodies that it has been years
or hundreds of years in drawing to itself. The increased

•See appendix (e),
tSee appendix (f ).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

0««MM(, Fowndation f^r SaimtM mtd SaHgion 85

brilliancy of Nova Persei as well as that of many other
variable stars was ondoubtedly owing to this cause.

5th. Can the system ever return to a nebolona con-
ditioQ by heat generated by the precipitation of planets
into the Son t The theory used to be advanced that pos-
sibly the precipitation of planets into the Sun might suffi-
ciently raise the temperature to reatoTe the system to a
nebula again, to unde^o changes such as it has perhaps
passed through. But (a) the succession of shocks would
be at such long intervals that the heat produced by one
would be dispersed before the next one, and if it were
possible for all the planets to strike the Sun at the same
time, there would not probably be the millionth part of
the necessaiy amount of heat produced for such an effect.

Again such an accidental, so to speak, expansion could
no more produce the solar Bystem by contraction than
throwing a handful of dust into the air would produce a
watch.

If any one of a vast number of circumstances in the
beginning had been different, results would have been
different It would be impossible for any accident to
reproduce those circnmstancea such as rate of rotation,
size and position of nebular densities, extent of disper-
sion of nebulous mass^ and so on. Note one particular,
rate of rotation. A point on the surface of the Sun now
moves at the rate of about a mile per second. If it were
to expand to the orbit of Mercury, it would have to have
its velocity increased to 29 miles per second in order by
contraction to again deposit that planet. This illnatrates
tlLe case of all. It mf^ be urged that the precipitation
of a planet would necessarily be upon one side of the Sun
near the equator and tiiis would naturally tend to ac-
celerate its rotation. That is very true, but the answer

i,z<..t,CoogIf

36 Gttutis, Foundation for Science and RtUgion

ia apparent. Every ponnd of enei^ expended in the
production of motion is lost for the prodaction of heat,
and any planet is so small as compared with the Snn that
if all the energy of ita fall were expended in accelerating
the Sun's rotation and none at all for the production of
heat, it would produce an unsppreciable fraction of the
required motion.

The same is true (^ all of them put together. How,
then, could they produce the necessary heat and motion
both I

"The Sim is but a spark of fire,
A transient meteor of the sky."

There was a beginning, there must also be an end of
the present order of things.

OBJECTIONS

It may be well to consideT a few objections that may
be urged against the possibility of the hypothesis. Many
have been urged which a moment's consideration at once
disposes of. Some are not so easily answered.

1st. There are many nebulae now that are not under-
going any such changes as contemplated above. But the
answer is, th^ were differentiy constituted. Some may
be undergoing changes very slowly, others more rapidly.

2d. The motions of the satellites of the outermost
planets of the system. These motions only ai^e a more
spherical form for the nebula than it afterwards assumed
as rate of rotation increased, also that the original nuclear
densities were farther removed from the plane of the
planets' orbits.

3d. The action of Phobos, the inner moon of Mars,
that rises in the west and seta in the east. The revolu-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BtUgion 37

tion of that satellite is more rapid than the axial rotation
of the planet, that is, it passes around the planet in len
time than the planet turns upon its axis. This, of course,
is well known. Bat the comparatively slow rotation of
the planet (only, however, a little slower than the
earth's) is owing to the relatively greater mass of the
nebular density that formed not only the nuoleos but a
large portion of the planet. It is only an evidence for
the author's view that such densities must have existed.
Every such density before separation from the parent
mass rotated on its axis once during its rotation around
the Sun.

Any addititffial velocity arises bath directly from con-
traction and indirectly by resultant motion from that
contraction.

The greater and denser the central mass, rotating
slowly, the greater the resistance to the forces that would
accelerate it, coining from the more swiftly moving but
much lighter outside portions. The outside portions of
the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are all moving more slowly
than they once did, for they are and have been imparting
motion to interior parte. The interior parte are rotating
with a higher velocity for they have been receiving that
motion. With Mars, the original slowly rotating center
was so comparatively great that, after receiving all the
motion that the outside tenuous portions could impart,
ite rotation was only increased to ite present rate.

It is not necessary to suppose that the axial rotation
of Mars has been retarded- It simply has not been more
accelerated. We have a suggestion as to the condition in
the small white spote op Jupiter. They move more
rapidly than the rest of the planet, and if there were
no visibly connection between them and the planet, th^

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

38 Oeneais, Foundation for Science and Religion

would seem to be satellites rerolviug around it in a
shorter period than the planet's axial rotatioa.

They wonld seem to rise in the west and set in the east.
The same would be tme of a body at the equatorial sur-
face of the Sun or Saturn. The case of Mars and Phobos
is but the same eoodition magnified. When the nebulous
msas that formed Mars and its aatellites extended to
Deimos — its outer moon — the outaide was revolving with
sufficient rapidity to deposit that moon, i. e. in 30 hrs. 18
min. But the center may not have rotated with the same
angular velocit?, ai^ more than that of the Sun or
Jupiter or Mars now does.

When it contracted to the orbit of Phobos, the outside
again may have rotated and did rotate with the velocity
with which that moon now moves. Bnt the main cenbnl
mass may not have revolved in less than thirty or forty
hours. The precipitation of the rapidly moving but very
tenuous outside portion would have increased the rotation
to its present rate.

It offers no obstacle to the hypothesis. In fact, so far as
known there is no iosuperable objection to the theory,
but every circumstance tliat has seemed to present diffi-
culties has, upon examination, oply revealed some addi-
tional conditions, and thus enlarged our knowledge of
what the ordinal conditions must have been. Before the
peculiar rotation of the Sun, of Jupiter and probably
Saturn was discovered, it ia said that astronomers had
pointed out something like three hundred remarkable
coincidences that could not well be accounted for upon
any other supposition than that the entire solar system
had developed from a parent mass of attenuated dust,
' ' emptiness, " " vacancy. ' ' The recently discovered
peculiarity in the axial rotation of the Sun, Jupiter and

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Geneaii, Foundation for Science and Beliffion 39

probably Saturn affords the final, and, as it may well
be considered, conclosiye proof that the original condi-
tion of the earth was tohu, hohu. At least it carriea the
evidence to an exceeding^ high degree of probability,
and such a probability as does not exist with reference to
any other theory.

Some concloaions necessarily follow :

Ist. No unaided human beii^ could have known the
cireomstancefl and have described them so tersely and
accurately. The words in Gen, 1 :2 were written centuries
before modem science was bom or men had dreamed of
the nebular hypothesis. Hence the narrative must have
been inspired. The One who made the worlds alone could
have imparted a knowledge of His methods to the one who
wrote the account.

2d. The matter must have been created very near the
time the planetary mames were deposited. There is no
conceivable theory as to the eternal existence of matter
as suck that can stand a moment's investigation. It is
true that the potentiality of matter existed from eternity
in the personality of the Creator, but it did not assnme
the form of matter until He willed it. The modem veri-
fication of Newton's theory of matter makes it inde-
finitely easier to conceive of creation than when the old
ideas prevailed. At least that is true of those who admit
the existence of a Creator.

3d. The creation moat have been comparatively
recent. The sun is the oldest globe in the solar system
and Jupiter, owing to its mass, assembled its material
so rapid^ that it may be the next oldest, or at least it
cannot be far from it. But neither of them has existed
as a globe loi% enough for their motions to become equal-
ized, BO but that the outer portions still flow around

:.bv Google

40 Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

the interior parts. This idea of the recency of creation
makes the fact of creation more visible to onr minds,
more real.

Owing to the limitations of our minds a fact seems to
dissolve or lose its force as a fact if pnshed too far back
in the infinite past. The fact of creation is not so remote
as to lose its force as a fact. It is a thing of yesterday.
It is easy to conceive that Jupiter's rotation could have
been such that for thousands of years its equatorial rota-
tion conld have been retardii^ and that some of its ac-
celeration should remain. But it is hardly conceivable
that this could have been going on for millions of years.
The estimates as to the age of the earth have of late been
decreasing, and yet they are probably too laige. They
seem to be baaed upon the supposition that the disin-
tegrating and erosive agencies were never more active
than at present, and that the rocks were never softer
than they are now. But in the very nature of the case
such suppositions must be incorrect. For instance, it is
not conceivable that Niagara was not more active when
the vast inland sea, of which the Great Lakes are the
remaining puddles, was draining off and pourii^ its
waters toward the Oulf of St. Lawrence, as well as toward
the GnU of Mexico.

Then as to the rocks. The fact of their being sedimen-
tary presnpposes a former soft condition like a sand
bank, in which erosion is ea^. It is certainly snppos-
able that when portions of the continents first emerged
from the waters, they were still soft and easily worn
away. The grand canons of the Colorado may have been
cut under circumstances in which a few decades would
accomplish more than millions of years in pres^it cir-
cumstances. But without dwelling upon the evidences

:.bv Google

Otneais, Foundation for Science and Btiigion 41

yn geology, those in astronomy point unmistakably to the
iSfbiQparative recency of creation.

4th. Another conclusion is that, as the writer of these
words in Qenesis seemed to utter a tmth, it is eminently
probable that the first statement is true, "In the begin-
ning Qod." There is a practically infinite probability
that the earth was "emptiness, vacancy," and the
probability that the writer knew what he wrote makes it
probable that he also knew that "in the beginning God"
created. The first declaration in Oen. 1:2 is pr^nant
with immeasurable meaning, and the religions world can
never discharge its debt of gratitude to science for turn-
ing its search light upon it and enabling men to read that

The next declaration is, "And darkness was upon the
face of the deep. ' ' In any rational view of this chapter
we must admit that the writer takes no acconnt of time
and that the word "day" refers to a period of time. The
seqnence at least is orderly. After the globe had formed,
without reference to time, ' ' darkness was npon the face of
the deep. " It is hardly possible that our globe as such
could ever have presented a Ittminons appearance. The
entire surface was enveloped by a layer of water ten
thousand feet deep. While the ball was hot this could
only have existed as an envelope of superheated steam,
and this again surrounded by an outer covering of vapor-
ous clouds formed by radiating their heat into outer
space. To an outsider, our planet would have presented
the appearance of a ball of clouds which light could not
penetrate either from within or from without. And this
emphasizes again the extreme rapidity of the cooling
process. Every one knows that water poured npon a hot

t,CoogIf

42 Otntait, Foundation for Science and Stligion

anrface will absorb beat with great rapidity, carry it off
and lose it by radiation.

Tbis would be the process in the case nnder considera-
tion. A mass of steam and vapor enough to make, when
condensed and precipitated, a layer of water ten thou-
sand feet deep was the medium for conveying the heat
from the surface to outer space. As the temperature
diminished the water would gradually remain as sach
and accumulate to form seas, while dense clouds of vapor
would still overhang the earth. There was a "deep"
and darkness was upon the face of it, and too, at first it
covered the whole globe. There was a time when there
was no dry land. The declaration then, ' ' And darkness
was upon the face of the deep," expresses a fact which
is abundantly substantiated. The appearance of light
and day as opi>osed to night before mention of the sun
presents no difficulty, for that would be the necessary
order. The account is written from the view point of
the earth's surface. After the earth's surface bad
cooled sufficiently for the main portion of the waters to
remain in contact with the solid matter, the cooling pro-
cess would be much slower and perhaps for ages the
earth would be enveloped with clouds of vapor dense
enough to completely hide the sun, as a body, and yet
admit sufficient light to distinguish between day and
night.

Indeed the theory that this was the condition up to the
time of the Noachian deli^:e is not entirely without
foundation. It may be that the sun never penetrated the
clouds sufficiently to form a rainbow until that flood sub-
sided, and that the hot house condition then existing ac-
counted for the long life of the antediluvians. This
theory, however, is not ewential to the present couteu-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

6ene*is, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 43

tioa. It is sufficient that day and mght could have sac-
fieeded each other for some time before the heavenly
bodies, as sach, were distingaishable. The writer has
lived for years where the miste, rising from Lake Michi-
gan, have clouded the sky and obBcored the sun for weeks
at a time, and for months it would only occasionally
break through. It could not have been otherwise than
that for ages, perhaps, the sky was overcast with clouds
so as to hide the sun and yet day and night be perfectly
distinguishable. "There was evening and there was
morning, one day." Evening was mentioned first for
darkness preceded the light

With reference to the word "day," but little need be
said, for it has been the opinion of many scholars and
theologians from the time of Augustine that the word
refers to a period of time rather than to a twenty-four
hour day. With regard to the "firmament," the mean-
ing of the Hebrew word rakia is expanse, expansion.
Whatever its derivation, or whatever other meanings it
may have, the meaning here lb apparent for one thing
from the statement in the 20th verse, ' ' and fowl that miay
fly in the midst of the firmament." It is as correct and
expressive of the truth as any sci^itific term that could
be invented at the present day. And when the writer
speaks of the heavenly bodies as being "set in the firma-
ment of the heaven" candor requires us to think that he
uses the words popularly as we speak correctly of "the
stars of the sky."

The emerging of the continent from the water is next
described, and it is necessarily next in geological order.
The fact that the waters once covered the whole surface
of the earth and that the land emei%ed from them is a
geol(^cal truth that needs only to be mentitmed.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

44 Geneais, FoundaUon for Saence and BeUgion

The appearance of grass is next mentioued. The fact
that geology has few records of the "tender grass"
(Hebrew) is not surprising for it could hardly exist as
fossils. So of the herb and fruit trees. However, the
A^e appears as far back as the Eozoon, or first form of
animal life. The term "fruit tree" does not necessarily
mean the apple, pear, plum and other trees now speci-
fically designated by that term. It may even refer to
some of the vegetation that formed our coal measures.
However this may be, vegetable life must have preceded
animal life as the record in Genesis states. All these
could have flourished before the heavenly bodies as such
could have been seen from the earth's surface.

"With regard to the appearance of these heavenly
bodies, as before stated the narrative seems to have
contemplated the earth's surface as the writer's stand-
point. The sun, moon and stars would be mentioned
when first seen. But it is not necessary to infer that the
writer even thought that they were not created until
that time. The statement is simply ' ' Qod said. Let there
be UghtA in the firmament" and so on, followed by the
declaration, "Qod made two great lights .... He
made the stars also, " This view is sustained by the fact
that the writer does not use the Hebrew word bara
(create) but asak (to make). In the beginning Gk>d cre-
ated the heavens and the heavenly bodies. At this junc-
ture He made them to appear, or in time He may refer to
a remote past.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER II

Tke Origin of Life as Described in Genesis and Recorded
in the Books

THE next period introduces animal life. This
together with that of vegetablfl life aud that
of man reqaires a more extended study. The
first inquit7 is concerning what Qenesis ac-
tnall; teaches as to the origin of life and then how
that teaching is corroborated in nature. There is first
the statement that "God created (ioni) great sea mon-
sters," and also Glod created (bara) man in His own
image. "In the image of God created (bora) he him."
The same word is used with reference to both Adam and
Eve, "in the image of God created (bara) he tiiem."
This statement is made twice with reference to both. The
same word is employed eight times in ^nesis with refer-
ence to the human race and eight times in othw parte of
the scriptures, where it is translated "create, created,"
and once where it {bara) is translated "made," as in
Ps. 89:47, "Wherefore hast thou made all men."

With reference to the lower forms of life we read,
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass" and so
on, (Gen. 1:11, 12). And again, "Let the waters brii^
forth abundantly" and so on. The word "create" is not
here used, but the Psalmist (Ps. 104:30 and 148:5) uses
the word bara with reference to practically all of God's
works. They came into being at the fiat of God, But it
may be urged that this may refer only to the fact of
creation and not to the mode, and that mode may be
gradual development, as the solar system was created
46

:.bv Google

46 Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUffion

and 7et took ages for its completion. The analogy, how-
ever, could hold only as far as the development of grass,
herbs and trees from the seed is concerned, or the
"swarmers" from the ova without a transmutation of
species. The apparent meaning seems to be that grass
was created as grass, herbs as herbs, trees as trees, the
sea "swarmers" as such, and that the creation form was
the terminal form. That is the popular understwding
of these words and that is the way the great natuvalist,
Charles Darwin, understood the narrative. But he
believed in that system of phylogenetic zoology popularly
known as evolution. Considering this ^stem of zoology
as merely modal, the narrative in (Genesis is correct
whichever view is taken. Were it not for the vast struc-
tures of philosiphy, history, theol<^y, and Christology
that are built upon the evolutionary theory the distinc-
tion would be worthy of but little thought But in view
of such structures as arc baaed upon this distinction it
becomes neeeEisary to examine briefly the subject and
claims of Organic Evolution.

OBOANIC EVOLUTION

In speaking of Evolution in general we are confronted
with the indefiniteness of the term as commonly used.
It may mean little or it may mean a great deaL There
arc three main divisions of the thought as commonly ex-
pressed by the word, the sub-oi^;anic, tiic oi^ianio, and
the super-organic. The first refers to the development of
matter without life to different forms and is applied
generally to the formation of the solar or stellar systems
from some more cmde conditions of matter. This has
already been referred to in a few words.*

*Above, Nebular Hypothesis.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 47

Organic Evolntioii is the name for a process, real or
imagiDary, of derivstioiiB or developmeat of the fomu
of life, vegetable and animal that have existed or that
now exist in the world.

Superorganic Evolution refers to the same process in
metaphysical spheres. At present we have to do only witli
organic evolution. But here, even in this restricted ap-
plication of the word, the widest divergence of opinion as
to the use of the term prevails. It is applied to the
ordinary growth of a vegetable from a seed, the hatch-
ing of a chick from an e^ or the chan^ of a tadpole
to a frog. It is applied also to the gradual, pn^ressive
developments made without interference from without,
but by ita own inherent potentiality, of some primordial
germ to all the varied forms of vegetable and animal life
that have existed on the globe. Between these two ex-
tremes tiiere exist almost as many degrees of thought as
there are men who receive the hypothesis. Some admit
but one or at least but very few startii^ points for the
upward movement, some admit more. There seems to
be DO one very definite consensos of opinion regarding
the number of creation centers, to use a theistic evolu-
tionist's phrase.

Further than this the term is also applied to a mere
category of thought without reference to material deve-
lopment.

Further still it is thot^ht of as Causal, or modal, Uiat
is as the Cause of all life, or as but the mode by which a
personal Creator has brought about the diversified forms
of life. In other words it is thought of as atheistic or
theistic.

"Above, Nebular HypotheeiB.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

48 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

CAUSAL EVOLUTION

At this point we may consider the probabilities that
all the advance in the universe has been in accordance
with law3 and by forces inherent in themselves inde-
pendently of any exterior power or Great First Cause.

If we were to admit that the solar system has never
existed in'any other than its present form, that the sun
has always had its present form, that the earth and other
planets had never existed in any other form, it would
be comparatively easy to believe that they could have
existed in their presen't form from Eternity. The sun's
continued luminosity would be the only thing to account
for and many various theories have been advanced to
do this. One could look upon the earth and say that it
had existed gust as it is from all Eternity, and so of
celestial objects, but when we admit as true a declaration
from writings that are at least entitled to our respect,
"The earth was .without form and void," all this is
chained. There is no possibility that changes like those
we have been contemplating could have been going on
from a-past eternity. There must have been a beginning,
and judging from the condition of the sun, the planet
Jupiter and Saturn and perhaps others, that beginning
was quite recent. There is no possibility that the solar
system could have been uixdergoing changes according
to a theory of self-perpetuating metamorphoses. This
has been considered. The space now occupied by the
solar system could not have been filled from eternity with
the dust vapor or gas that never responded to the power
of gravitation or cohesion until within recent years.

Nothing in the universe more clearly points to a begin-
ning than the solar system, when conceived of as havii^;
once existed in the form described in Gen. 1 : 2. There

:.bv Google

Oenegis, Foundation for Science and Religion 49

is no theory as to the eternity of the matter in the solar
syatem more tenable than that a qiiantity measured by a
mathematical zero coold contain within itself the power
to moltiply itself to infinity. Granted a beginning and
a priori it is as reasonable to predicate a Cause for that
beginnii^ as to suppose that a universe sprang of its
own accord from nothingness. But aside from this and
aside from the declaration in any writings extant, there
are collateral and direct evidences of such a great First
Cause. We may dismiss as sufficiently understood the
first group of collateral evidences such as the cosmo-
logical, ontological, teleological, moral and so on, and
consider as matter of scientific value a direct, personal,
and positive knowledge of snch a Cause. And in this
connection this subject is introduced not as a matter of
sentiment, emotion or religion but as a matter of inestim-
able value to the scientist who would go deeper than a
mere superficial knowledge of phenomena.*

A knowledge of such a Cause is as essential to knowii^
nature as a knowledge of steam is to an engineer. We
may imagine a man who knows something of machinery
watching the movements of the piston rod of a great en-
gine. He sees and recognizes the relations of other parts
of the machinery to the piston rod, bnt positively
refuses to admit that there is any power or anything that
exerts power in the cylinder. It is the nature of the
piston rod to move back and forth and the development

•The writers (or scientiatst) who have criticised the
late Lord Kelvin for inferentially admitting the ezist-
euee of a First Cai]se display a superficiality that would
invalidate any of &eir own conclnsJous reached by
original inveatigation.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

50 Genma, Foundation for Science and Religion

of its power is an accident He goes to see an experi-
mental engine in which the cylinder is of glass so that
he can see the interior. Then he knows that there is
nothing to move th.e piston back and forth but that it
moves because it is its nature to do so. He can see the
head of the cylinder, the piston rod and all there is, and
there is notiiing there. He might have considerable
knowledge of machinery, but if his prejudice against the
fact that there is snch a thing as steam should prevent
his takii^ any steps to find out about it, he could hardly
find employment as an ei^rineer where any great interests
were at stake. Not that he might not know what levers
to pull or what joints to oil, or what other routine motions
to make, but the fact that prejudice prevents his obtain-
ing a knowledge of somethii^ intimately connected with
his business when that knowledge was clearly and easily
within his reach would a]^ue a mind unbalanced to such
an extent as to render him unfit for responsible positions.
Nature is snch an engine, with a great invisible Cause at
work first to produce it, then to work through it

That Cause is knowable as to fact, though unknowable
in the infinite reaches of his being. Here we stand on
solid gronnd, that of absolute knowledge. There is no
use of mincing words or makii^; concessions to the un-
belief of tliose who have never son^t to know that Cause
by methods adapted to the nature of the subject. Adapta-
tion to the nature of the subject investigated is always
essential. One could not find the moons of Jupiter by
the methods of the alchemist nor microbes by astronomy.
The methods of investigation must be adapted to the
subject investigated. There may once have been an in-
stinct in every human being that could direct him to the
r^ht methods of investigation in order to find that cause.

0»Tutu, Foundatum for Science and BeUgion 51

At any rate there is a Iimt contained in a book witbin the
reach of all that will start one right, "Then shall ye find
me when ye shall search for me with all your heart ' '*
This ia but the requirement for the saceesafol pursuit of
science aixmg any line. The moral nature must be such
as tqinfiore candor in the investigation, the wUl must be
in stteh an attitude as to accept results. The only differ-
ence is that in searching for the great First Cause more
depends upon the attitude of the will and condition of the
moral nature than in the search for lower objects. But
no man has ever complied with the prescribed conditions
who has not found Qod as an objective fact and the
master fact of the universe. As stated before, he may
not, cannot, know Him in the infinite reaches of his being
but he may know him as a fact and enough of him for bis
own practical needs. One may know the fact of the
Mississippi river, and enough of it to supply him with
drinking water and to row bis boat upon, and yet not
have explored it from its mouth to the source of all its
tributaries. So one may know God as a fact and enough
of Him to supply all his needs and yet not know all about
Him. But this knowledge may increase. "Then shall
we know if we follow on to know the Lord."t This
knowledge of a fact and as a fact vitally connected with
all we know of nature has never been sufficiently em-
phasized. Men are apt to tread softly, and speak tem-
porizingly and make concessions, and be very uncertain
when the fact is questioned. It need not be so. One may
speak positively when he says there is such a thing as a
central sun in the solar system, thoogh some blind men

*Jer. 29:13.
iHoa 6:8.

:.bv Google

52 Genetis, Fovndation for Science and Religion

msy say that they do not know it and it is imknowable.
The sun as an objective fact is known by millions of
people, and known as independent of the cc^uitiona of
any man or set of men. Qod as an objective fact exists
and is known by millions of men and as an objective fact
exists independently of the cc^nitions of any snbjective
"ego."

If any one is ignorant of that fact or in doubt with
reference to that fact, it is because he has never pursued
an investigation adapted to the nature of the subject,
and is ignorant of the fact most intimately connected with
everything that can be known. And this fact corroborates
a statement not only that there was a beginning to the
cosmos, but in the beginning "God," and we may carry
out the statement, "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth." And this truth is the corner-
stone of that rock foundation that we find in Gen. 1, for
exact science as well as for revealed religion. Admitting
this fundamental fact, our next inquiry would naturally
be, to what extent the great First Cause has been im-
manent and active in the orderly development of creation.
Beginning pretty well back, if God had withdrawn after
speaking the first stellar system into existence, would
other unknown millions of stellar systems have come into
existence! The answer seems apparent when we reflect
that every stellar system is independent of everyother and
is itself a distinct creation center. He was still immanent
and active, at least until the last sun was made. But after
the fiat for the solar system had gone forth, did he with-
draw to the shades after enduing matter with inherent
power to produce the phenomena that have since ap-
peared T The question may come closer home. What is
his relation to the universe now T Has He withdrawn to

:.bv Google

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeKgton S3

the shades after enduing matter with inherent power to
produce phenomena t The question may appear with
more distinct outlines in the form, ' ' What if God should
dieT" There are forces in existence now, would they con-
tinue to operate T The sun exerts an inconceivable power
over the planets that revolve around it. What is that
power T Men call it gravitation, but that accounts for
nothing. Naming a phenomenon does not explain it. If
Ood should die, would the sun continue to exert that
force! Would other sunsT Would any matter still
retain the power over adjacent matter that it now haaf
Would force known as heat exist, or l^iht, or electricity I
Would the X-ray manifest its power t These questions
might be continued through the eatali^ue of more subtle
forces, cohesion, crystallization. The forces that regulate
the action of particles of solid matter, as, for example, of
steel, would they continue to operate t It may be that
the very existence of matter itself depends upon the per-
sistence of force or forces. Would any forces remain in
operation if God should cease to exist! Would there be
anything material, would anythii^ of any nature or even
space itaclf remain T Some would answer these questions
instantly in the affirmative. But after all that answer
may not be correct. Whatever may be the answer there
is an orderly succession that su^ests cause and effect,
and if the power to produce effects inheres in the nature
of matter independently of an exterior great First Cause,
it exists there because an intelligent and infinite First
Cause has placed it there.*

*Note the opinion expressed by Sir Oliver Loc^e, that
"the existence of a great World-Soul is the best explana-
tion of things as they are. ' '

:.bv Google

54 Geaetia, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

This may seem a dogmatic asaertion. But with all dae
deference there is no use in mincing one's words and
hesitating and expressii^ doubt upon this point. A
modem iconoclast has tried to prove by a priori reason-
ing, or in some other way, that the Chinese wall is only the
figment of imagination, that really there is no such thing.
Suppose some intell^ent European had lived for twenty
years within sight of it, had walked npon its top, had
noted its towers and had traced its course for hundreds
of miles, would it be necessary for him to speak doubt-
ingly, or, out of deference to the opinion of one who had
never taken pains to inform himself, say "I may he mis-
taken. I may have dreamed that I lived in China for
twenty years, or I might have been mistaken when I
thought I saw it, or have been laboring under a hallucina-
tion when I imagined that I was travelling along its top.
It may be that the thousands with whom I have talked
and the millions whom I know to believe in it as a fact

"At least out of deference to the opinion of one who
does not believe in it, we most be careful not to be too
dogmatic in our assertioiiB eoncemii^ it. I have never
traversed the whole 3,000 miles of its course. I do not
know the composition of all the stones that enter into
its construction. I do not know the cause of the fissures
it crosses or the precipices it scales. I was not living in
the reign of Shi Hwang-ti who is reported to have caused
it to be built. In fact I find there is so little about it that
I do know that I may be mistaken in it alL "

There is no call for any such concessions to the ignor-
ance of one who has complacency in hia ^noranee and
will not take pains to inform himself. Of course the
answer some will make to this line of argument is that

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesia, Foundation for Ssdence and Beligion 55

tiie Chinese wall is an object of sense perception, while
God is not. Troe, but the cognitions which are brought
to the soul of man by perception are not material. And
the only function of the senses is to bring intangible and
non-material cognitions to the soul. But there are cog-
nitions that are not conveyed through these channels.
The sense of smell brii^ cognitions of things that are
responsive to the sense of smell, so of sight, taste, touch.
But these cover but a small range of cognitions. The cog-
nition, "I am" does not come to one in that way. The
The cognition "Qod" need not, and both may be equally
well known as facts. One may say "ego sum" without
heeitatiug or making concessions to the Q-nostic philo-
sophy, and any such concession even would not relieve
the situation. One may say "Deus eat" with as little call
for concession to one who doubts the fact, ' ' In the begin-
ning God" is the comer stone of the rock foundation in
Gen. I., for exact science as well as for revealed religion.

DSSiaN m CREATION

Admitting the fact that Qod is and that Ood created
and made, the question is ashed, did He have des^ in
making the worlds and the thii^s in themt Are parts
designedly placed in certain relation to parts for a
designed result or for a purpose that would not have
been served by accident t The question does not differ in
kind or degree from the same question concerning a
steam threshing machine. Admitting that some one made
the machine is it likely that there was a des^ued con-
struction and adjustment of parts for specific ends or are
the different parts of one machine fortuitous collections
of matter assembled by some other fortuitous circum-
stances! Such a question needs no answer. Neither
does tiie former save for a strange mistiness of conception

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

56 Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUgion

or confusion of thought that takes everything for
granted. And when one argues for design in nature, the
argument usually proceeds about as one might proceed
in arguing for the manifestation of design in a steam
threshing machine. ' ' This is evidently not the result of
chance, for the belt is just long enough and none too long
to convey motion from the belt wheel of the engine to the
cylinder in the machine that threshes the graia ' ' The
complex mechanism of the boiler and engine and their
adaptations to each other as well as the still more com-
plicated separator with its thousands of parts all con-
structed with reference to the purpose they are to serve
and adjusted to each other so as to secure the desired end,
all these are taken for granted. They come as a matter
of course and do not need to be accounted for and we
need not look into them for evidenoe of design. But there
is design in every part and manifestation of design per-
vades the whole of these structures, even to the smallest
bolt, screw, nail or curiously shaped fragment of wood.
These things, thousands of them, are to be taken into
consideration as well as the length of the belt in arguing
for design as manifested in their construction. It is so in
nature. One might argue for design in the human body
because the pneumogastric nerve rises near the seat of life
in the base of the brain and proceeds to the organs in the
body most closely connected with and necessary for the
life of the body. One might say that design is mani-
fested here because if the functions of the vital oi^ans
had depended upon nerves issuing from the spinal cord
at its nearest point an injury, so likely to occur, to the
spinal cord would necessarily prove fatal. An injury is
less likely to occur to a nerve situated entirely within the
body than to one near the outside, like the spinal cord. So

DolizccbyGoOgle

Oenesis, Foundation for Science o«d BeUgion 57

design is manifested in the human body in this arrange-
ment. The argument would be correct as far as it went.
But it would be about as exhaustive as an argumejit from
the lei^th of the belt would be for design in the case
before mentioned. There is des^ manifested in the
position of that nerve. There is design in its construction
80 that it conveys just the messages from the brain that
are needed for the action of those vital organs. There is
design manifested in the great sympathetic CQ^tem of
nerves and in its almost total independence of the cerebro-
spinal system. There is design manifested in the con-
struction as well as in the position of the optic nerve, so
that it conveys impressions produced upon the retina by
light. There is design in the construction of the auditory
nerve so that it responds to vibrations of the tympanum.
There is dctsign manifested in the constraction of nerves
so that some fibres convey messages of sense and others
of motion. There is as much design in the eye itself as in
the telescope, in the ear as in the phonograph. There is
design manifest in the construction of the lungs so that by
endosmose oxygen may pass into the blood and by
exosmose carbonic acid may go out. There is design mani-
fest in the construction and ramifications of the tubes
themselves as well as in the gas or water pipes of a great
city. The list might be extended indefinitely, for there
is not a portion of the animal frame as large as a pin's
head but what is as complicated in its construction as a
watch, so far as the human maker is concerned, and con-
tains as much evidence of design. It is so of every frag-
ment of the vegetable kingdom. It is so of every frag-
ment of the mineral kingdom. We do not realize it be-
cause of the limitations of our knowledge concerning
them. But in the final analysis, a grain of sand with the

t,CoogIf

58 Genesis, Foundation for SdeTice and BtUgion

ultimate atoms composii^ it, their forma, tlieir nature,
their responses to the action of forces that keep them
together and that cause them to assume certain shapes,
their own activities among themselves, their adaptations
to each other and to the universe at large, these with other
eircnmatanoes connected with it make a grain of sand
as complicated in its structure and to contain within
itself as much evidence of design as the most complicated
machine of human contrivance.* There is design man-
ifest in the infinite vastness of the stellar systems. There
is design manifest in the infinitely small. But the
answer of some to the foregoing is of course known.
These things come in the course of nature. In the mineral
kingdom they are formed by forces operating in the
inoi^anie world. In the vegetable and animal kingdoms
they grow. With some that answer is sufficient and satis-
factoiy. It is the Topsy philosophy, "There didn't
nobody make me, I growed." But in the light of the
absolute, the positive knowledge that "Qod is," "Ood
created," "Gk>d made," there is a profoimder wisdom
than the Topsy philosophy. These things are made, they
are made for a purpose, they are made from design.

With reference to the wonderful formation of even so
apparently simple a thing as a grain of sand or a drop
of water note the following/

AN ATOM

"Atom" means something indivisible, but the chemical
atom has belied its name. The atom of hydrogen, the
smallest and lightest of them all, is now believed to be
made up of about seven hundred "electrons" — a name
given to the ultimate particles of matter, each of which
is charged with electricity.

:.bv Google

Oenesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 59

There is, perhaps, no grander conception of the con-
' stitution of matter than is that set forth in a recent
lecture by Sir Oliver Lodge, one of the foremost men of
science of our time. He asks ns to consider an atom of
any element as an infinitely little solar system. If the
electron be conceived of as having the size of the full stop
at the end of this sentence, the size of an atom of
hydrogen will be that of a church one hundred and sixty
feet long, eighty feet broad and forty feet high.

Less than a thousand electrons occupy the atom, in the
sense that an army occupies a country. They prevent
anything else from entering; they make the atom im-
penetrable, although they do not fill a trillionth part of
tile space with their actual substanee. The electrons are
in violent motion among themselves, havii^ a speed prob-
ably one-tenth that of light — thousands of miles a
second.

Yet there is little danger of collision, for the electrons
are much farther apart in proportion to their size than
are the planets of oiu" system. Thus, s^s Sir Oliver, we
have come to an atomic astronomy, and he su^ests the
amazing thot^ht that there is no such tbiz^ as absolute
size, and that even solar and star systems may be the
atoms of a larger universe.

It seems a contradiction in terms to speak of the study
of an atom as a means of broadening the mind ; but where
can one find a higher flight of the fancy than in the idea
of that atom as a sphere of motion at a speed which the
human mind can hardly conceive t

:.bv Google

CHAPTER III

The Origin of Life as Described in Genesis and Recorded
in the Rocks, Continued

MODAL EVOLUTION

WE next consider Evolution as Modal.
This is, of course, the theory held by
all Christian evolutionists. In attempt-
ing to study evolution, it is unfortunate
that there should be eo much confusion or at least so great
a variety of thought in one term. It would help clarify
the subject if we were to use at least two terms for
different thoughts, as "development" for processes that
take place according to what we know as the laws of
nature, e. g., the hatching of an egg. The term "evolu-
tion" should be reserved for those processes that involve
at least as much as the transmutation of species.

It may be further stated that a consideration of this
subject can be carried on mainly without theological bias.
Except where the hypothesis is carried to the extreme of
morals and religion, it affects religion only indirectly and
incidentally rather than directly and necessarily.

To what extent this influence may be injurious owii^
to the limitations of human nature we will not now con-
sider. We will here say only that it touches religion con-
tingently. Tumii^ now to organic evolution, what is the
fundamental idea t According to Huxley, life originated
in undifferentiated protoplasmic matter which by its in-
herent power became endued with life, of the lowest form,
and then by a constant succession of transmutation of
species has passed into higher forms and has finally
60

:.bv Google

Oeneais, Foundation for Scieiice and Religion 61

produced mankind. Quoting his own words in speaking
of this process he says, "In all this vast progression
there would be no breach of continuity, no point at which
we could say, this is a natural process, and this ia not a
natural process, but that the whole might be compared
to the " 'hatching of a chick from an egg.' " "That in
fact is what is meant by the hypothesis of evolution."

The question then arises, did all life spring from one
protoplasmic cell or were there twoT IE two, one for
vegetable and one for animals, why not morel That is
the question to be settled by the evidence,

Referring to the stellar system, as I have before in-
timated, there must be aa many creation centers as there
are fixed stars and of these there are at a conser-
vative estimate 50,000,000. Now if there are 50,000,000
creation centers in the stellar universe, is there ai^
inherent improbability that there were more than
one, two or a dozen such centers in the animal and
vegetable kingdoms of earth 1 The nebular theory, if
true, only illustrates the development of an individual
life and not that of even a species, to say nothing of a
series of transmutations of species.

In organic evolution, then, we must begin with the
question as to the evidence that all forms of life began
with one low form of life and if so, what I If from two,
one vegetable and one animal, what are the results t No
definite opinion, so far as I know, is generally held. Hux-
ley attempts to trace man back to the sea squirt, but was
that the original formf No. There is not a naturalist or
geologist who would admit that, for that is a high form
of life compared with many others. The earliest fossil
remains so far found are those of aninntla But animals
would not give birtlL to plants or, if they did, it would be

L l,z<..t,C00gIf

62 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

a downward rather than an upward moTement. Without
doubt the first forma of life were vegetable of which no
traces have yet been f oond.

About the earliest vegetable forms known were those
of the algae or sea weeds. But during the geologic ages
that species has remained essentially unchanged and
abounds today in forms the same as those of the earliest
specimens yet found. Now if some algae parents begat
algae ofi^rings, so to apeak, and have continued to do so
throughout the ages, is it probable that other algae
parents begat ofi^rii^ of some other species and these
begat other species still and so the thousands of species
of fossil and living plants have been produced t But
another fact confronts ns. Of late the science of bac-
teriology has been coming to the front. Students of that
science have reason to suppose that there are as many
varieties and species of microscopic v^etation as of tiie
larger forms which we see around us.

Have they all a common ancestor t And if they are
all the terminal forms of an upward movement that has
been going on through all the geologic ages, from what
did they b^in t If there has been an upward movement
through all these ages, it is incomprehensible that we
should have existii^ at the same time, in the same habitat,
thousands of forms of life from the microbe, or the mould,
to the sequoia or big trees of California. If evolution in
the vegetable kingdom has been a general law, it must be
exceedingly uncertain and capricious in its operations.

Bat we are told that it is not, cannot be a general law.
We hardly need to be told that, but, if it is not general,
how restricted is it T and if not universal how are we to
determine the nature and extent of its restrictioaaf An
assumed law that is bo variable and capricious in ita

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

GffMfM, Foundation for Scitne* and BtUgion M

operations, with so many unknowable restarictiona in
itself, could hardly seem to form tlie baaia of acientifie
knowledge.

Precisely the same is true of animal life. We have
microseopic forma of animal life aa well as of vegetable
life. And we have today all of the practically infinite
varieties of life existing at the same time, life from that
of the microbe that produces diseases of the animal frame
to that of the elephant, forma of life from the parasite
of the microscopio insect to man, all being in the same
habitat, and yet exhibiting such variety. It is difBcult to
conceive a law that woidd be aa capricious in its opera-
tions as that. I speak of microscopic insects. They are
not mentioned in evolution, but they are facta to be ac-
counted for the same as elephants. Have all come from
the same starting point I If we have to admit that there
must have been a few separate starting points why not
admit more, enough in fact, to obviate the neoesn^ of
assuming transmutations of species t

But confining ourselves to the large animitla Haeckel
assumes that it has taken 1,000,000,000 years for men to
evolve from the lower vertebrate animals. But they do
not carry us farther than one-third at least of the way
back to the first forma of life. However, ftMnming that as
the full period of animal life on the globe, we have the
eozoon (first form) standing for a thousand millions of
years as a monument to fixity of species, for it exists to-
day aa it did in the eozoic age. If other forms of life
have come from it, we have the phenomena of some eozoon
parents producing eozoon offspring in unbroken succes-
sion for that length of time while other eozoon parents
gave birth to Polyps, Acalephs, Echinoderms, Aeephala,
Gasteropoda Cephalopoda, worms and so on in eodleos

:.bv Google

6i Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

VKPiety throi^b the great classes of Badriates, Mollusks
and Articulates, and all existing in the same waters and
at the same time. Then upward with the vertebrates with
their countless species to the highest ones. All of these
varieties, according to the hypothesis, have taken place
in the descendants of some eozoons, while some were con-
tinuing absolutely without change.

Of course we are familiar with the evolutionists' er-
planations, that natural selection, survival of the fittest
and other factors produce different conditions. But the
conditions are such that the original eozoon lived and
multiplied. What was the necessity of its begettii^
trilobite offspring T And their conditions were such that
trilobites lived and flourished and have done so to the
present time. What was the necessity for them to beget
Aroncolae or Paradoxide offspring! These questions
could be repeated of thousands of different species all
living contemporaneously, in the same waters, with the
same food at their disposal, the same environments in
every respect. What need that one species should b^et
another species to adapt it the better to its own hornet
"Survival of the fittest" is another theory to account for
the phenomena. But it accounts for nothing, for fit or
unfit, the original forms survive for millions of years in
the same habitat as their supposed offsprii^. Partheno-
genesis also comes in to help out the explanations. But
the fact, if it be a fact, that one sex in some moths and
some bees have ofCspring without intercourse with the
other sex explains nothing. All these causes or modes of
evolution are so utterly inadequate to acoonnt for the
phenomena that many evolutionists abandon them en-
tirely and seek proof of evolution, without reference to
cause or mode, in Embryology.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 65

It is observed that the humsn embryo passes through
stages in which it somewhat resembles some lower forms
of life. It is heDce inferred that it gives a history of the
development of the human race from the lower animals.
But there must be some stages of development in which
the human form is not perfect. It is so with the oak —
with every form of life. The doctrine of epigeneais was
never sustained by any observations of nature. Bat
without disieussii^ this phase of the question further,
it is apparent that this similarity accounts for nothii^.
If it be an analogy to the development of tiie h\iman race
then the records of that development would appear in
the rocks. The same may be said of the argument from
atrophied or rudimentary, or more properly, vestigial
appendages. They prove absolntely nothing. They may
suggest lines of inquiry, but anything to sustain sach
theories must come from the records in nature — geology.
In any form of development that is worthy of a separate
name, transmutation of species most have occurred thou-
sands if not millions of times. But there is not a particle
of evidence anywhere that it ever occurred even once.
Mr. Etheredge in ehat^ of the Natural History depart-
ment of the great British Museum, has plainly said, "In
all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence
of transmutation of species." No scientist, whether
evolutionist or not, has ever known of an individual case,
nor do they pretend to. They are still hunting for a
single specimen, hut billions of them are required. The
transition of one species to another is supposed to have
taken place by a gradual differentiation from a lower to
a higher form, and evolutionists claim that billions of
years are sufficioit to account for the chai^. But first
they haven't billions of years to work in, for, as has been

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

66 Genesis, Foundation for Saence and Religion

suggested before, in the chapter on Snborganic Evolution)
the sun is of Bucb recent creation that it has not yet had
time to 80 equalize its own motion, but that the exterior
ia fitill flowing around a more slowly revolving core. The
same is more strikii^ly true in the planet Jupiter. And
with reference to these long periods in general, the loiter
the time the weaker the argument ; for the greater should
be the number of transitional forms, and not one has ever
yet been discovered.

Let us bring out the force of this argnment by a specific
esse, that of Hozley's "Demonstrative Evidence of
Evolution. ' * In this he gives the pedigree, so to speak, of
the horse, aecordii^ to specimens by the late Prof. Marsh
of Tale, which are now in the museum of Tale College.

These specimens are the remains of the Orohippus,
found in the eocme period ; then in 8 rising scale there
are the Mesohippus, Afiohippus, Protohippus, Pliohippus
and Equus, or horse, as at the present. The eocene period
takes US back about one-third of Haeckel 's billion years
to the first vertebrates. Say then for convenience that
the orohippus lived three hundred millions of years ago,
and as there are five stages to reach the horse we may as-
sume as his figures that from one form to the other was
60 millions of years. How many transitional forma
might we not expect to find for each terminal one T Al-
lowing five years for the youi^ to become parents — and
in the early forms probably one year would suffice — and
there would naturally he 12,000,000 intermediate forms
between each fixed pair, and yet not one of them has ever
yet been discovered. This only illustrates one gap where
there are tens of thousands of them. To meet the diffi-
culty Darwin and Huxley simply say, "We should not
expect to find any." But I should. "Why nott Wl^

DiailizccbvGoOgIC

Oeneiit, Foundatton for Scienc* and BtUgion 9J

might we not expect to find a few of the 12,000,000 inter-
mediate forms in this gap as well as in every case the ons
or two at the extremes f Huxley meets it aa every evolu-
tionist meets every difficulty, by the imperfection of the
records and by stating that in two cases an apparently
intermediate species has been found in two very wide
gaps. But, with reference to the imperfection in the
srock records, in hundreds of cases the records in the rocks
are sufficiently perfect to establish the fixity of species
for a large portion or the whole of geologic time. The
a^e, for example, from the time that we have any traces
of vegetation have remained unchanged The records in
the rocks are perfect enough to ^tablish fixity of speciea
for them all throi^h the geological ages since v^etation
first appeared on the planet. Several other vegetable
species and many animal species for the same or nearly
the same length of time have remained nncbanged.*

But suppose the transition from one species to another
to be abrupt, one species producing another or next
higher without transitional forms, then we should have
the phenomenon of one species remaining fixed for an
inconceivably loi^ period of time and then at once bring-
ing forth another species. As for instance, taking
Haeckel's large figures we should have the orohippus re-
maining fixed for some 20 to 60 million years and then,
just as the eocene mei^ed into what we may call the
mesocene, some orohippus parents brought forth meso-
hippuB ofbpring, which again maintained an absolute
fixi^ of species for another period of from 20 to 60 mil-
lion years, when again some mesohippus parents brought
forth miohippua ofiFspring and so on through the series.

*See appendix (g).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

68 Qenesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

According to this theory each species would have pre-
served an absolute fixity for millions of years and then
at once some parent in tiiat species suddenly begat off-
spring of another species. It would naturally seem aa if
these millions of years were enough to establish fixity of
species in each case and if another species appears at the
end of one of these periods, it must be accoonted for in
some other way than as being the offspring of antecedent
species that has been fixed so long.

There seems to be a mistiness of thought in some circles
as to cause and effect. We used to read in our school
readers that "Great effects resnlt from little causes."
As a matoh could set fire to a city, a little break in a
river dam cause an overflow and so on. In the sense in
which the writer used the words he was correct, for he
referred only to the fact that some small forces could
direct or release greater forces that were sufficient to
produce the effects, while in fact admitting that no effect
is ever produced greater than the sum total of the forces
operating to produce it. A little girl some years ago
touched an electric button and the bed rock under the
Hell Gate in N. Y. harbor leaped from its resting place
in millions of fragments and the waters above were for
a moment converted into a boiling sea of foam. But the
ounce of force exerted by Gen. Newton's little girl was
not the ^oient cause. It was not a great effect from a
little cause, because every pound of force manifested in
effect was the result of a pound of causing force behind it.
The little girl's touch only released forces that were snfB-
cient to produce the effect.

So in every case. The final result is but the measure
of the cause that produced it. This statement is just as
true with reference to the potentiality of the protoplaa-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 69

mie cell. There are millionB of such cells in existence
BOW, each one capable of receiving ita life principle only
from its own peculiar source, and then its potency is con-
fined to development only aloi^ ita own peculiar line.
The protoplasmic cell on an incipient com cob cannot
be fertilized by the pollen of the rose. It must be
fertilized by pollen from the com tassel and then it
will appropriate the nutriment brought to it by the
parent stalk and it ean develop only into a grain of com.
Others will receive their life principle from other eources,
bat each one from ita own and exclusive source and will
develop it along its own line.

Now to endue the little aggregate of protoplasmic cells
in the germ of algae with potentiality to produce a
sequoia would be equivalent to the creation ex nikilo, ot
the sequoia. To endue a polyp with power either directly
or indirectly to produce an elephant is equivalent to
producing an elephant. To endue a sea squirt with power
to finally develop into a man would be equivalent to the
creation of a man. Yet how easy it is for the imagination
to endue the ovum of the orohippus with the power to
produce the mesohippns or any other form. And how
easy it is for men in imagination to endne the "slimy
ooze of the early sedimentary deposits"* with power to
produce all the varied forms of life that have existed
since. But in every instance the enduement of such
power would have been equivalent to the creation of the
resultant forms.

But with reference to the "Demonstrative Evidence
of Evolution" one question is whether the movement is
upward or downward. The horse is larger than the oro-

•See appendix (h).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

7U Oenetit, Foundation for Science and Beiigion

hippos bat not neceasaril}' more highly oi^anized. If size
be the measure of development, then the sommit of evolu-
tion was reached ages ago and we are now on a down
grade, for the largest forms of life existed long ago and
are now extinct. But if the eohippus begat the orohippusr
the orohippna the mesohippua, etc., is it an upward or
downward movement in animal oi^anizationl There is
increase in size, but the atrophying of parts, the extinc-
tion or leaving but rudimentary of four members, leav-
ing bat one instead of five, could as Intimately be con-
sidered degeneration* as evolution.

If some Nordeao, advocating degeneration tn the
animal world, should use that as an illustration it would
have as much force.

But another very common argument is that we see the
process of evolution goii^ on around us every day. The
egg hatches a tadpole, the tadpole evolves the frog, and
so on.

We could accept the theory if men would confine the
meaning of the term to what is proven by that means.
Bat when it is admitted that an egg can evolve a chick
or that the hatchii^ of a chick is a process of evolution,
the term evolution is immediately extended so as to em-
brace an entirely different idea. The process is some-'
thii^ like this. If an egg can evolve a chick, evolution is
established. But e^s have repeatedly been known to
evolve chicks, hence evolution is established. But evolu-
tion meaos that a single protoprosmie cell has, by a pro-
cess of multiplying forms throi]^h an indefinite number
of species produced all the forma of life that have existed
on earth.

•Appendix (i).

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genetit, Foundation for Sdenee and ReUgicn 71

This coQcluBioQ or aoj part of it more than that an egg
can produce a chick, involves a logical fallacy that oogfat
to be seen even by one who haa never studied logic.

But one of the greatest practical difSculties with any
theory of evolution is the existing condition of things.
If the ot^anic life of today be the outcome of any process
of evolution, how is it that some of the primitive forma
have remained through all the geol<^c ages entirely or
practically unchanged T Others have chained hut very
little and all have produced very capricious results.
Why is itT We have microbes that produce diseases in
men and we have elephants. Have all evolved from the
same protoplasm f If so why are they not on something
of the same plane nowT We have thousands of species
of microscopic plants and animals, thousands of speeiM
of aquatic and thousands more of land animals from the
eosoon to man. Why is it that some have made no ad-
vance at all, others have reached the highest conditions
as man, and all have stopped just where they aret We
have microbes, infusoria, and thoiisands of other members
of the animal kingdom. We have still the ovum, wiggler
gnat, ovum wiggler gnat, repeating the same small circle
of existence after all the geologic ages have given them
time, but still the circle is unbroken. How long will it
t^e to get above that condition t We have ovum, tad-
pole, frog, repeating themselves in the same small circle
with the thousand million years, so often quoted, behind
them and still they get no farther. We have all of the
thousands of species of lai^r animals with only a very
few near the head. If advance from the lower to the
higher forms of life is a general law of nature, why is it
that we have the very lowest forms still, and the h^heat
with all of the intermediate forms still in aziattneaT

I ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

72 Oenesis, Foundation for Sdtnce and BeHgion

Whether the diflCerentiation has been by natnral eelec-
tion, sarvival of the fittest, parthenogenesis or any other
means, there must be continnal creation of the lower
forms to supply the advancing masses, as in college there
must be freshmen classes to supply advancing and
graduating ones.

Bnt some admit that the law of evolution cannot be a
general one. If not, then how general or how special is
itt If we admit that it is a special law for only a few
lines of individual saccefision, there is no force at all in
a general ai^piment, and we are at once thrown upon the
proofs for each specific case. If in the hundreds of thou-
sands of species of plants and animals now in existence
there has been transmutatioa of species in only a few
instances, the strength of the presnmption in favor of
those exceptional cases is greatly reduced.

There is a vast number of species of living things now
in existence — for convenienee, we will say 100,000,
though there are doubtless more.

Now if the supposed pn^essive upward movement
haa characterized only, say, a couple of independent lines
of individnal successions, while the remaining 99,998
have remained without transmutation, the presumption
is very strong against the supposition of transmutation
in those two exceptional cases. This presumption is the
stronger because even in these two instances there is not
a particle of evidence that transmutation has occurred.
It may be urged that there is such evidence in the case
of a horse. But there is do evidence whatever that the
orohippus was the progenitor of the mesohippus nor that
the mesohippus of America was the parent of the miohip-
pus of Europe. The presumption is in favor of the
theor7 that they were independent of each other, and the

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Qenetii, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 73

presumption is strengthened by the fact that cloaelj
allied fomu have been found that are not considered to
be in the line of succession at all, as the Anchitberium
and Hipparion. So far as any proof is concerned, the
evidence is that there were several closely allied species
existing, some contemporaneous^, some successively, but
no one derived from another, as there are many such
existing today, as in the case of monkeys and apes,
closely allied bnt not derived one from another, as the
geologic records show from the first that have appeared.

The other case in which transmutation is insisted npon,
whatever else in the theory must go, is that of man.

Whatever else must be yielded in the theory of evolu-
tion, it is most strenuously insisted that man has been
evolved from lower orders of animals. Still there is not
a particle of proof, nothing but presumption; and the
presumptive evidence is greatly weakened by the fact
that nearly all of the species through which he is sap
posed to have passed are still in existence. It is difficult
even to suppose a line of descent throi^b the various
species of vertebrates for man 's descent, for no line seems
to be suggested but what is soon abandoned. But what-
ever line we take, some parents must have brought forth
youi^ of their own species, while other parents must
have brought forth yom^ of another species, for the
various species have preserved their own separate exist-
ence while supposedly furnishing an upward succession.
But such a presumption is too violent to be scientific, if
not too violent to come within the bounds of reason. Even
admitting that through some unknown line of individual,
not general, succession man has been evolved by gradaal
differentiation, there most be millions of intermediate
{ossil forms, while scientista are vainly looking for a

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

74 0»nttit, Foundation for Scienc$ and Religion

aingle link to prove evolution. But to prove the theory
in general, billions of them should be found. To prove
it in the single case of man would require hundreds of
thousands. Transmutation of species must have occurred
thousands of times even in this one line, and yet not in a
■ingle instance has it ever been observed, nor would it be
admitted to be possible, for no experience or experiments
have shown it to be possible, except for the necessity of
sustaining a theory that in the minds of some must be
proven at all hazards.

The superintendent of the department of Natural
History in the British Museum referred to and in part
quoted before, declares : " In all this great museum there
is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species.
Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer non-
sense, not founded on observation, and wholly unsup-
ported by fact. They adopt a theory and then strain
their facts to support it. I read all their books, but they
make do impression on my belief in the stability of
species. Moreover the talk of the great antiquity of man
is of the same sort. There is no such thing as a fossil
man. Men are ready to regard you as a fool if you do
not go with them in all their vagaries. But this museum
is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views."

^cb, Google

CHAPTER IV

The Science of Geology, Confirming tht R«cordt of
Genesis I

WE refer again to the records in the rocks aa
confinuing the recorda in Genesis. Aa be-
fore stated, Genesis seems to teach that
plants and animals brought forth after
their own kind or species and not after some other
species. We read with reference to vegetables, (Genesis
1:11, 12), "And Got said, let the earth bring forth
grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after its Mud, whose seed is in itself, apon the
earth ; and it was so. "

"And the earth brought forth grass and herb yielding
seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whos*
seed was in itself, after his kind ; and God saw that it
was good." Also in reference to aquatic animal life
[Genesis 1:21], "And Got created great whales, and
eVery living creature that moveth, which the water
brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every
winged fowl after its kind, and God saw that it was
good," Then as to land animals, verse 25, "And God
made the beast of the field after his kind, and cattle after
their Mud, and everything that creepeth upon the earth
after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

It may be urged with reference to animal life tkht
it is not said that they brought forth after their kind, but
it is distinctly stated that God"created"or"made"them
after their several Muds or species. But of vegetables it
is distinctly afBrmed that they "brought forth after their
kind. ' ' And of animals it is an inference Vf Strong that
76

:.bv Google

76 Geneais, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

it ia safe to aay it never would have been questioned ex-
cept as necessary to sostain some other theory. There is
authority for this view that ought to be considered high
by those who would entertain those other views. Charles
Darwin never hesitated in his belief that Genesis first
taught that in every instance the creation form was the
terminal form. He believed that Genesis was wrong and
that bis theory of an upward movement through trans-
mutation of species was correct It was the persistency
of this idea, i. e., that Genesis was wrong and he was
right, that occasioned bim finally to lose faith in G^esis,
in the Bible as a whole, in God and revealed rel^on, and
to die a practical unbeliever. It may seem a premature
statement, but it is undoubtedly true that in future years,
when the truth becomes more clearly seen, the greatest
lesson that Darwin has taught the world is the involun-
tary testimony his experience bears to the unity, in-
tegrity and absolute truthfulness of the Scriptures. But
it is not for us here to decide which is correct, his view
of the teaching of Genesis first as to the stability of
species, or his theory as to their transmutation from one
into another in an upward aeries. He is cited here only
that his high authority may confirm the commonly re-
ceived idea that Genesis first teaches the permanence of
species, and that in every case the creation form is the
terminal form. This latter view seems to be the teaching
of geology without the shadow of dissent. To show this
clearly to the ^e we have here represented some of the
strata of the earth, as the Laurentian, Horonian, Cam-
brian, Silurian, Devonian, and so on, up to the Modem ;
the divisions of time, also, as Eozoie, Paleozoic and
Neozoic. The perpendicular lines represent some of the
species, and their length represento approximately the

:.bv Google

Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUffion 77

PalcMolc Tlve

4«SftKaf

§. e

iirii

Eoioon Apimal SpwJM from Eozotc

Alg«e Plant Lift from Eozoic

Cedar

Tulip

Willow

Spice- •rood

SMMfru

WaluDl

Buckthorn

CionaniOD
Apple

Plum
S pecie* of Trilobiiei

700 irf G«noid» from Palwioic Tiniei, iome of which eite nd to prcKOt

450 Specie* of Nautilui from Siluriap, toiat eiteudin g to
the prewDt

1. Orobippui — -

Z. Mcnhipput s

3. Hone — extinct *pecic« found by —
DarwiD ID Pleittocene

4. Miohippua c

5. Pttmibippui J

6. Pliohippui

7. Equui of prcMOi

Cooglf

78 Om*iit, Foundation for Soionet and BtUgion

geologic ages daring which theg^ have or did bring forth
' ' after their kind. ' ' In the vegetable world, for ex&mpla,
we have the algae, that from Eozoic to the present,
whether the terrestrial years be a thooaand, a million or
a thousand millions, have "brought forth after their
kind." The species has remained fixed through all the
ages since it first appeared. The same may be said af
some other species.

Some lines represent the persistence of other ipeeiea
from the carboniferoua period — cedar, poplar, willow,
oak, fig, tulip, spice-wood, sassafras, walnut, buckthome,
sumac, cinnamon, apple and the plum. Whenever you
look at one of these common trees you have evidence of
the truthfulness of the record in Qenesis, "They brought
forth .after their kind"; for from the ear^ geologic age,
or for some say 5,000,000 yeara, they have invariably and
unvaryingly produced their species, brought forth "after
their kind, ' ' as stated in G-enesis 1 :12. In the ^*n''"^ ^
kingdom a long line represents the persistence of
Eozoon, which has brought forth after its kind from the
earliest time that animal life appeared npou the globe.
We need not refer to years, for, whether thousamjs or
millions, it has reproduced its species — brought forth
after its kind— during them all. But many species arc
so nnmeroDS that we have to let one line represent a hnn-
dred species. Note five lines representing five hundred
species of trilobites, that through the unknown ages of
the Paleozoic time brought forth "after their kind"
without even a hint that a single individual of any
species ever reproduced anything but a trilobite "after
its own kind." Note nine lines representing nine hun-
dred species of ammonites, which brought forth after
their own kind through more or less of Metosoia tinu;

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Otnesii, Foundation for Seitnet and StUgi^n Tt

alflo lines representing four hundred species of nautilu
that, while they existed, brought forth only "after their
kind, " without the slightest trace of ever having deviated
from that mie. Again there are seven hundred species of
the ganoids of which the same may be affirmed.

To represent each species of plants and animals l^
lines an inch apart we should have to extend the chart to
ten miles in length instead of one foot. In that chart
every line an inch apart for ten miles would represent a
species that so far as known has reproduced its own
species — brought forth "after its kind," as Genesis de-
clares.

To illustrate the supposed genealogy of the hone, in-
stead of lines six inches long representing the flxi^ of
some species through all geologic time, five lines each a
fraction of an inch long represent species that are sup-
posed to have passed from one to another in an ascend-
ing scale. Men have guessed that in the last fraction of
geologic time, the modern period, the orohippus merged
into the mesohippus, and so on. In other words, the oro-
hippus did not bring forth after its kind, but brought
forth of mesohippus kind ; and that the mesohippus of
America brought forth the miohippus of Europe, and
this brought forth the protohippus. and that the pliobip-
pus, and this the equus. But there is not the slightest
evidence that one of these forms was the direct descend-
ant of any of the others — it is mere supposition. So far as
anything is yet ki^own, every plant and animal has
brought forth after its kind.

To quote from an address of the author's on "The
Seientific Accuracy of Genesis I, " an abstract of which
was recently published :

"The same holds true of the fancied descent of several

:.bv Google

80 Oentais, Foundation for Sdenct and BeUgion

pacbyderm animaln from some primal ungulate in the
earlier strata. The sopposition is tliat aome one speciea
in the past was directly or indirectly the parent of several
lines of hybrids, or mongrels, and finally developed into
the tapir, elephant, rhinoceros, and so on. But there is
not the slightest evidence that that has been the case.
Science refers to what is known, and I am speaking of
Science and Genesis; and so far as anything is known,
the rocks confirm the records.

"But the most curious idling in connection with this
theory that plants and animals have not brought forth
after their kind is the supposition that if a species can
be found that is ck>sely allied to some other species, the
fact would prove that those other species have merged
one into another. An eminent English man of science
once supposed that the discovery of two species in wide
gaps between other species proved that one of those
species had mei^ed into the other, and, inf erentially, that
all of our ten miles of parallel lines had come from some,
perhaps, single line ; or at least from a very few.

"So, of the connection between the anthropoid apes
and man. The idea seems to prevail that if we can dis-
cover even a single specimen of an, as yet, undiscovered
species, existing between the ape and man, that this dis-
covery alone would prove that man sprai^ from the
ape. Bat, in fact, it would not prove that assumption any
more than the discovery of Eros proves that Mars once
traveled the Earth's orbit, and that all of the planets
have been splashed off from the surface of the sun. The
similarity is very close, the cases are parallel, but to show
it would require a discussion upon which we cannot enter
in a single evening's address. I can only repeat that so
far as science, as opposed to conjecture, is concerned,

:.bv Google

Genesis, Foundation for Scienee and BeKgton 81

everything in the records of creation confirms the written
records la Qenesia I.

" It is maintained that the records in the rocks are so
imperfect that it may yet be proved that Genesis ia
wrong. Bat these records are perfect enough to establish
the fixity of species, in some instances through all geologic
time, and in thonsands of other cases through all of
some geologic periods or large portions of them. In
establishing Genesis the rocks are not at fault. It ia only
when we wish to prove that Genesis is wrong that we have
to appeal to the imperfections in the geologic records.
Bnt so far as science — that which is known — is con-
cerned, withont the si^cestion of dissent, the rocks con-
firm the records of Genesis I.

"Add to this the fact that a transmutation of species
has never been known to occur in geol(^c or modem
times. The invariability with which each produces "after
its kind" soggests a law of necessily that this mnst be
the case.

"Add to this the admission of Darwin that if design
ia Duinifest in the universe, or that if anything exists
except for utilitarian endt^ the theory opposed to Genesis
is false.

"Add to this the universal barrenness of hybrids and
the constant tendraicy to revert to type, and many other
considerations of the same kind, and we have a portion
of one line of argument—where several exist — in favor
of the correctness of the statement that each plant and
animal produces 'after its Mnd.' "

Indefinitely more might be said along the same line,
but enough has been said perhaps already to make it
pertinent to raise a question here. Is it scientific to as-
sume that all this mass of evidence mutt go for nothing,

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

82 Oenesis, Foundation for Sdenee and BeUgUm

and that the truth is found in a theory of phylogenetie
zoology that is rapidly losing ground in Gtirope f

Upon the side of permanence, fixity of species, we have
the testimony from the records in geology without the
suggestion of dissent, confirmed by the statements in
Genesis I, as commonly understood and as interpreted by
Darwin. Upon the other side we have a few vague
analogies or inferences, some of which point one way and
some another, e. g. : The little caruncle in the comer of
the eye is claimed as evidence that man has descended
from some nocturnal bird, while the vermiform append-
age is claimed as evidence that he descended from some
marsupial quadruped. Is it scientific to assume that all
of the evidence for permanence of species, a little of
which has been cited above, is to go for notbini: as out-
weighed by a few analogies, inferences and speculations
which have no facts to sustain them t

But here again we are confronted by the difBculty of
attaching a clear, deiimte, tangible idea to the word
evolution, and nothing can be said upon either side of
the question but what can be strained to support some
one of the various theories of evolution. As one has said,
' ' Darwin may be in error, Huxley may be wrong, Mivart
may be wide of tlie mark, Haeckel may be mistaken, Cope
may misjudge and Spencer be at fault, but evolution is
a great and established fact. ' ' Of course, for one can not
admit the existence of anything without admitting evo-
lution if everytbii^ distinctive in the term is left out;
but is it scientific to build upon the theory thus emptied
of meaning the superstructures it could hardly sustain
if all the ideas thus eliminated remained in itt Is it
scientific to build the same superstructures upon the
creative evolution of Agassiz, Gray, McCoach, Baden

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

tfffWftf, Foundation for Scienct and Btligion 88

Powell, the Duke of Argyll and others, as upon the
fttheiadc evolatlon of some others 1 la it scientlfie to rft-
wnt« sacred history so as to make it correspond with
infereneea drawn from an hypothesis that has nothing
bnt imagination to stand apont It may be m^ed, of
coarse that there are facts npon which tbia hypothesia
ii baaed. There are indeed facts which are supposed in
some measure to sustain the theory, but thus far the con-
nection between them ia purely imaginary, as before
noted in the supposed genealogy of the horse. There are,
aa everyone knows, the remains of the orohippus, meso-
bippus, protohippus and so on, but what evidence is there
that the orohippus did not appear as such and disappear
without undergoing any modification of form 1 So of all
the others. That the mesohippus is the lineal descendant
of the orohippus, and so on, is pure imagination with the
presumptive arguments of the known fixity of species
against it. Farther, the remains of the Anchitherium and
Hipparion — ^very similar in form — are not in the line of
descent, and that some horses in the past were not so
derived ia apparent, from the fact previously stated that
Darwin found and recognized the tooth of a horse con-
temporary with some of the earlier so-called progenitors
of the horse. We do not claim these as positive proofs,
but they CM-tainly present a mountain of probability that
one was not derived from the other, to ottaet the mere
fancy that they were.

Again, the fact that certain forms of life appear that
seem to be between the fish and the bird is assumed to
prove that birds are evolved from fishes. But is there
any evidence to ahow that any such forms have not ex-
isted aa they now are from their first appearance to th*
prenntt Millions of other forma have bo ronained un-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

84 Q«n9ti», Foundation for 3einc§ and B$ligion

changed; why not these T The presumptiye evidence ia
all in favor of the supposition that these alao have so
remained, and there is nothing bnt a fancy that they are
transitional forms between the lower and the higher
forms of life. This presumptive evidence is immensely
strengthened by the fact that fully developed, perfectly
formed birds now exist and have existed for ages without
a suggestion of variation, except when such variation haa
been forced by cultivation. Moreover the remains of per-
fectly formed birds have been found in as old formations
as the Jurassic, and now there is so little suggestion of
change in bird life that four hundred varieties of hum-
ming birds exist in one locality, of which some feathers
would never be mistaken for those of another variety.

The BalanoglossuB is supposed to be a connecting link
between worms and the vertebrates. But we have worms
now and vertebrates from the lowest forms to man. Is it
probable that some worms millions of years ago produced
Balanoglossus offspring, and they in turn produced ver-
tebrate animals, and so on, while some worms continued
to beget worm progeny to the present day t If probable,
is the probability greater than the probability that like
thousands of other species of animals it first appeared in
its present form t The same questions may be asked con-
cerning the Bathybius, and Amoeba that are supposed
to be initial or transitional. Now is it scientific to base
conclusions of the greatest moment upon imaginary con-
nections of facts t To state the question is to answer it.
Science is but the discovery of facta and the tracing of ac-
tual, not imaginary, connections between them. The Cape
to Cairo railroad in Africa is approaching Victoria Falls
from both north and south. When the two sections reach
the river on opposite sides there will be the fact that

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Scionee and Beligion 65

road extends north to Cairo and south to the Cape, bnt
it will require something more than an imaginary'' bridge
over the chasm to make it safe to run trains across. It
would not be safe to attempt to nm a train acrosa an
imaginary bridge, but it would be just as scientific to
attempt that as to boild vast structures of philosophy,
theology and history upon imaginary connections with
other facts.

"Whatever the future may have in store, at present
there is no actual connection between facts such as to
warrant the vast stmctures that have been built upon
the fancied relations between them. Is it scientiflct
Again I say to ask the question is to answer it. To call
such proceedings science or scientific is to use the term
in a loose, unmeanii^, bastard sense that is a travesty on
its real meaning and an insult to true science. It it
because it has been so frequently abused that the term
itself has become a stench to the truly scientific spirit.
It is "science falsely so-called," and all of its contradic-
tions to revealed religion are but "the oppositions of
science falsely so-called."

And the same observations hold with increased force
■with reference to the recent adjustments of philosophy
and religion to the supposition that man has developed
from the lower animala There are facts, of course, in
embryology, facts in zoology and natural history, but the
connection of those facts with any theoiy of such develop-
ment is purely imaginary. There is a little caruncle at
the inner comer of the eye, but that it is a vestige of a
nictitating membrane and proves that man descended
from a nocturnal bird is pure imagination. There is the
vermiform appendut, but that it is vestigial of a greater
and perhaps useful appendix, and proves that man has

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

86 Ometit, Foundation for ScUnca and BeUffion

descended from some mampial animal is imaginntion.
There ia in the human embryo the "lanugo," but to sup*
poae that fact to prove that primeval man was haiiy and
descended from some hairy animal ancestor ia pura
imagination. So of other fancied proofs. All that any-
thii^ along that line can do is to suggest lines of inquiry,
but if they point to facts the record of those facts could
be found in the rocks. They prove nothing, and even
suggest little in the matter concerning which they arc
forced to do such great service.

The caruncle of the eye may serve some useful purpose
connected with the lachrymal duct, the vermiform ap-
pendix may have a function, as has been suggested
recently, of lubricating the intestines. So of other
vestigial organs. Men have never yet exhausted the
resources of infinite wisdom, and purposes of use and
beauty may be served by means of which we have as yet
no knowledge.

With reference to the derivation of man the rocks are
silent, for no trace of a fossil man has ever been foond.
But there is evidence r^arding his derivation that should
have weight. It is scientific to accept evidence. Very
little of any man's scientific knowledge today has been
of his own discovery. Nearly all of it has been taken from
written or spoken testimony. It is scientifie to accept
well authenticated testimony. If it is not, Kepler was
not scientific in accepting the evidence that formed the
basis for his celebrated "Third Law." But he was right
in accepting the evidence and correct in his use of it, for
the principle of that law is demonstrable and has been
demonstrated. It is scientific to admit evidence when the
authority of the source has been reasonably established.
Coimoitony and geology have ettabliahed the tene, literal,

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

Otneait, Foundation for Sdanca and BeUgion 87

acientifio accuracy of many statements in Qenesia I. This
fact should tak^ its testimony out of the nimbus of vag^ue,
indefinite nebulosity that has enshrouded it. Its state-
ments are clear, clean-cut, explicit and accurate, and en-
titled to a respectful bearing. What is that testimony t

' ' And Qod said let us make man in our ima^e, after our
likeness • " • * So God created man in his own
image, in the image of Ood created he him; male and
female created he them. ' ' But of course we are met with
the argument that this may be true, but he may have
taken millions of years through transmutation of species
in which to do it. Darwin did not so understand it.
Geology absolutely confirms similar statements concern-
ing vegetables and lower animals as Darwin understood
those statements. If such evidence is to be assumed as
false there is no foundation in nature for any science
that has for its field of investigation the orderly aucces-
sion of plants, animals or men from ancestors. If higher
forms have been derived by gradual differentiations
from lower forms, first, billions of transitional forms
should be found for every terminal one that has been
found, whereas not one has been discovered and, second,
any divergence whatever outside of the limits of a clearly
defined species would invalidate the testimony of nature
aa to the orderly succession of species, and make the
result so uncertain that a science of zoology would be im-
possible. If on the other hand divergence comes by leaps
or bounds as Darwin suggests as possible and illustrates
by a diagram, that is, if a species may have brought forth
after its kind for thousands of years or through an entire
geological age and then give rise to a half dozen or even
one different species the case as to the iK>s8ibility of
Mience is indefinitely worse. It would be like trjring to

Doiizccb, Google

88 Omens, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

constract a science of astronomy where any heavenly
body was likely to start off at any moment upon a
different orbit or burst into a dozen pieces and each one
pursue a different and widely distant orbit of its own.
Anything like science would be impossible and all condi*
tions of knowledge would be reduced to chaos. Is it scien-
tific then to assume that all the evidence in nature and
revelation as to fixity of species is to go for naught and
that history, philosophy and theology are to be re-written
in the interest of such chaotic relationsi

Is it scientific to reject all the evidence of Genesis as to
the origin of man and conclude that he has descended
from an avis ancestor because in the corner of the human
eye is a supposed vestige of the nictitating membrane of
some ancient nocturnal bird, or from Ihe horse because he
has the platysma myoides of the neck, homologous with
the useful panieulus camosus of tbe horse, or from the
ass because he has some useless ear muscles while in
that animal they are lai^er and useful, or from the ape
because of the coccyx or from some other animal because
of the lanugo in the embryo t

To call such proceedings philosophical or such pro-
cesses scientific is to bring both terms into contempt. No
wonder the partisans of such philosophy and science find
a conflict between "science" and religion. We can ex-
claim with Paul, "Beware lest any man spoil yon through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men,
after the mdiments of the world, and not after Christ. ' '
Or again, "Oh Timothy, keep that which is committed to
thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and op-
positions of science falsely so-called, which some pro-
fessing have erred concerning the faith. "

In these few thoughts there has been no attempt to

:.bv Google

Gtnuit, Foundation for Sdtnc* md XtUgion 19

sustain or overthrow ai^ system of phylogenetic zoology,
but to present some evidence and to raise the question,
Is the balance of evidence in favor of ai^ system of
Eoology involving the transmatation of species suffi-
ciently great to be admitted as absolnte tmth or near
enough to it to warrant the tremendous stractures of
history, philosophy and theology that have been baaed
npon it as if it were absolnte truth t We might raise
another question, Is the balance of evidence such as to
sustain any theory of organic evolution until the term
is emptied of everything distinctive in it I If we take the
term evolution and empty it of all the distinctive views of
representative evolutionists of the past generation, it is
sustained by all the evidence of geology aa the creative
evolution of Gray, McCosb, Baden Powell, the Duhe of
Argyll, of Dawson and Agassiz and many other firm
believers in the inspired records. As the Duke of Argyll
says, " It is as certain as any fact of history that creation
has had a history. It has not been a single act done and
finished once for all, but a long series of acts, a work con-
tinuously pursued throi^;h an inconceivable lapse of time.
It is another fact equally certain respecting this work,
that as it baa been pursued in time so also it has been
pursued by method. There is an observed order of facts
in the history of creation, both in the organic and in the
inoi^anic world." No one would deny this. It is but a
re-atatement of Qenesis I, and there has never been any
controversy over the term as thus defined, until the ad-
vent of men who would fill it with other meanings that
have no warrant in facts.

Whatever m^ be the outcome of present discuasicns
or future discovery, there is now no foundation in facts,
logically connected, npon which to build any stractnres

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

M Otnuii, Foundation for Seione* and BtKgion

that could not be based upon the literal and exact acien-
tifio facts recorded in Genesis I. Thoa far that chapter
is the rock fotrndation of exact science as well as of
revealed religion.

We have thus considered some of the essential state*
ments in the first chapter of QencEos, with some of their
corroborative evidences in nature. There is a prac-
tically infinite probability that they are correct. At
least they are indefinitely more probable than any
theories that are opposed to their correctness. Ancient
astronomy began to accumulate the facts upon which
is established the probability that the earth at one time
was "emptiness, vacancy." The modem sciences of as-
tronomy, chemistry, optics, mathematics, spectrum
analysis and others have brought that probabili^ in-
finitely near to a demonstration. The primitive condi-
tion of the earth as "tohu, boku" is as satisfactorily
settled as if men had seen that condition with their own
eyes, as indeed a similar condition may actually have
been seen in the recent nebula around Nova Persei. This
condition involves the necessity for creation, while the
condition renders also more probable his declaration con-
cerning creation. According to real science the fact of
making implies a maker, the fact of creation implies a
Creator. The first two verses in Genesis I are correct in
their statements. The rest of the chapter to the appear-
ance of life follows necessarily. There is every reason
to believe that the statements as to the origin of life are
correct. The first chapter of Genesis is the narrative of
solid facts. It is a true foundation for every science
affected by it, the rock foundation for revealed religion
that is built upon it.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Otntait, Foundation for Science and Bdigion 91

SnFBROBOANIC EVOLUTION

A few words upon this subject may not be oat of place
here. Much of modem speculation is based upon the
assumption that in the infancy of the human race men
were of a very low order of beings and that there has
been a gradual, steady movement upward, without as-
sistance from outside himself, until the present civiliza-
tion of Europe and America has been reached. Facta,
however, hardly sustain any such theory. Archeology
seems to indicate that the farther back we go in the his-
tory of the race, the higher the degree of civilization. At
least, this seems to be the case in that part of the world
that has been univerflally considered as the cradle of the
race, as Asia Minor and Egypt.

The pyramids of Egypt show degeneration rather than
advance. The oldest one is not only the largest but im-
measurably transcends all the others in its suggestive-
ness, not to say, its teachings.

Ruins indicating a high degree of intelligence are scat-
tered through Mexico, Central and South America as
well as in the islands of the Pacific, and these latter are
now occupied by the most inhuman cannibals and head
hunters. The Chinese have deteriorated from what they
were 2,000 years ago. The sacred books of India in-
dicate an indefinitely higher condition of life and morals
than exist in that country to-day.

Alfred Russell Wallace, on the eve of his ninetieth
birthday, as reported, says, "Man has shown no im-
provement either intellectually or in morals from the
days of the earliest Egyptians and Syrians 7,000 years
ago to the keel laying of the latest dreadnaught. " He
then goes on to say, "There has been, of course, a great
aoeumulation of human knowledge, but for all that w«

t,CoogIf

92 Gsfusit, Foundation for Science and Religion

are no eleTerer than the ancients. The aTerage of man-
kind will remain the same until natural selection steps
in to raise it. " He undoubtedly states a fact until he gets
to the remedy. Natural selection has had a chance to
operate, has been operating throngh all those 7,000 years
and atill we have not only the average man, but we still
have men living in the stone age, we have eave dwellers
and more than that we have races that have not yet
reached the condition of using stone implements or living
in caves. The Cooboos or Kabus of southern Sumatra
still live like pigs, picking up nuts, berries, edible roots
and so on, with no habitations and the only difference
they know between a living and a dead person is that the
dead do not breathe. They leave their dead, unbnried,
where they fall.

The world is strewed with the ruins of extinct civiliza-
tions where now the rudest barbarism prevails.

What is the cause of this decay 1 The apostle Paul
cannot be far from the truth, ' ' For the invisible things
of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made, oven his
eternal power and Qodhead so that they are without ex-
cuse : Because that, when they knew God they glorified
him not as Qod, neither were thankful ; but became vain
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was dark-
ened. Professing themselves to be wise they became
fools, and ao on. There is rich food for thought in that
first chapter of his letter to the Bomans. Divine revela-
tion foretold the doom of many cities and nations and
history has verified those predictions. These may illus-
trate the case of those civilizations that have not been
mentioned in holy writ. In the nnrenewed man there is
no inherent, uplifting force. But to those who have been

L ,l,z<..t,C00gIf

Otnetit, Foundation for 8ciene« and Bitigton 93

'bom of the Spirit,' to those who, by accepting Christ
and believing on Him, have been 'bom again' there is
imparted an uplifting force and as the individual rises,
civilizations rise.

:.bv Google

The FaU of Man

IF one hod been stationed on some nearby star, had
seen the flash of newly-created nebula and then
had watched it as it formed its rolling spheres
eircliBg around and completing the solar system,
the evidence as to its creation and formation could hard-
ly have been clearer than it now is. Further, if one had
heard with his physical ears an audible fiat, "Let the
earth bring forth grass," and so on, the evidence could
hardly have' been more conclusive as to the origin of life
upon the planet than it is now. And if the whole pro-
cess had been concentrated into seven of our earth days,
the facts could hardly have been more vivid and real
than they are at present. Facts do not change their
nature by reason of age. No human eye saw or ear heard,
but He who "spake and it was done," who "commanded
and it stood fast, ' ' kindly revealed the facts to one who
wrote them down for our instruction.

This chapter is the basia of the Bible. Although com-
posed of many books written in different periods, it bears
the marks of unity and of ultimate authorship. The first
of Genesis alone could mark it as unique. It is not
merely one of many sacred books. It stands alone.
There may be many books of human origin that contain
much truth, but there are none that bear the stamp and
seal of Divine authorship that mark the Bible. It stand*
among books like the pyramid of Cheops among the
others. Others may resemble it in form, some perhaps
approach it in size, but there is an immeaaorable diatanca
94

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Gtnttis, Foundation for Soienct and BtUgton 9S

between them as to tlie teaching. The Bible it like the
miracles of Moses and Aaron in the presence of Pharoah
as compared with those wrought by the sorcerers.

Again, if one had seen and heard as stated above, and
had known that all was done in the interests of created
beii^is, nothing that could have secured the interests of
those creatures in after years could have seemed in-
credible or to challenge a reasonable belief. Nothing
could be more reasonable than faith in the narrative that
follows that wonderful declaration of facts in Qenesis I.
There is no miracle coneeivable that eould match in the
physical world the great miracle of creation. In fact
the very existence of the universe is evidence, to a
thoughtful mind, of a stupendous miracle, and one that
makes all other miracles recorded in the Bible seem prob-
able. To one who is cognizant of the constitution of mat-
ter and who admits that "in the beginning Qod" existed,
creation itself and all its sequences as narrated in the
revealed word are credible, natural. The great World
Soul of Sir Oliver Lodge, the Supreme Intislligence of
Wallace, the ultimate Force, the persistence of whieh
(though not perhaps perceived as a Person) waa the
basis of Spencer's philosophy and of Farrady's phyaica,
was known to Newton bm God, to Mosea as Elohim. The
same Person revealed Himself to His chosen people in
many ways and with names that adapt Him to avery
need of the race, until in the fullneas of time He became
Jesus, Ood incarnate, sacrificing Himself for the sins of
the world. This last is really the greatest miracle of all,
the one moat vitally connected with man's welfare and
yet one most stubbornly denied even by some who admit
the miracle of creation. But this will be dwelt upon
later.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

96 Oenetit, FoundaUon for Scienct and Religion

Bat here we must strenuotuly eoatend that a book
which opens with a revelation of such astounding, intel-
lect-transcending truths as those in GeneaiB I, is reason-
ahly entitled to more than ordinary consideration. None
of its Btatementa are to be flippantly thrown aside. Any
rational religion involyes the idea of a wisdom higher
than man 's, and man 's highest wisdom ia a confession of
ignorance and dependence upon that which ia higher.

When asked, in effect, whether we are to believe the
Bible because of its contents, or believe the contents be-
cause they are in the Bible, the late Dr. Harper of Chi-
cago University wisely replied ' ' both. ' ' The idea
implied is that there are so many things in the Bible
that are known to be true that they estabUsh the veraci^
of the booh as a whole and we must believe other things
in the book which we should be under no obligation to
believe bat for the established veracity of the book. This
principle is involved in our every day affairs. The books
of the merchant woiild be worthless it this principle
were not allowed as valid in the eoorts. The merchant
can prove his books by proving that some of the entries
are correct. Other entries have to be admitted to be true
because they are in the books. This principle, of conrae,
is not infallible with reference to the merchant's books
for he may be dishonest and make false entries. In other
books there may be much truth and yet, owing to ignor-
ance, there may be much that is untrue. But in the
Bible there is no motive for dishonesty, and a writer who
knew the wonderful facts recorded in Genesis I, would
not belikely in ignorance to write antmths. Again, some
may insist that Genesis I is allegory. No, it is no more
allegory than Euclid's geometry. It is not probable that
ths following chapters are. It it tme that the same man

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

0enesis, foundation for Science and Religion 97

may write the most profound mathematical works and
"Alice in Wonderland." A man has done it Bttt he
did not write a chapter of abstract mathematical tmth
and then a chapter of ' ' Alice in Wonderland, ' ' bind tikem
together and pass them off as one piece.

These thoughts apply here to the stoiy of the fall of
man. Simian anthropology teaches that man was cre>
ated in the image of an ape and has been stumbling ap-
ward. Genesis teaches that he was created in the image
of Gk>d and stumbled downwards. The first chapter of
Genesis is correct. It is probable that the third chapter
is. Accepting the fact that the nniverae is, that the nar-
rative in Genesis I is true, there is no inherent impro-
bability in the story of the falL It is customary to smile
at the snake story. But the amile may arise from self-
complacent ignorance. At least it is not wise to treat as
frivolons a story recorded as a fact, that stands in such
close proximify with the wonderful story that immediate-
ly precedes it.

It is to be noted first that there was not the enmi^ nor
fear existing between man and the serpent that there
now is. It is not probable that Eve would have been
more frightened at the sight of a lai^e serpent than we
at the sight of a cat Even now in some parts of the
earth serpents are domesticated like cats and for the same
purpose. Second, it is coming now to be an established
fact that wniTFi*!" have a language or means of com-
munication among themselTes which may be imderstood
by men. Note the fact that a learned professor has re-
cently devoted himself to the study of the Simian
langu^^ and the report that a department has been
established in one of our g^eat universities for study
along the same lines. It is not impossihle that our flnt

U,:,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

98 0*nui», Foundation for Seienes mnd BeUgion

parents nndeTatood animal Itm^aage and eonTersed with
aom« of them.

Bat learing this as bdi^ little relevant and of slight
eonsegnenee, it is not a matter of surprise that Eve acted
so little astonished. Whether, in general, animals could
talk or not, with very limited experience she might not
have known but that all animals oould talk. So to Eve
it may not have seemed marvelous that a beast should
talk, for if she had not talked with them she had never
spoken to any one but Adam and was totally inex-
perienced. Then with reference to the serpent, it is no
more marveloos that it shoald have been endued with
the power of speech for the occasion than that in later
years, Balaam's ass should have been so endued.

Really the whole qnestion of probability or impro-
bability goes farther back than this first visible outcrop-
ping of evil. Has sin entered the world 1 The question
needs no answer. It is too apparent everywhere. Ad-
mitting then that sin is in the world, it requires no
stretch of credulity to believe that it entered with the
first man. But howT By yielding to some temptation.
But why should temptation in any form be allowed to
enter an earthly EdenT The answer is apparent. It was
to make virtue, goodness, righteousne^, moral character
possible to man. It must be an axiom of ethics that
without libera to sin, there could be no possibility of
virtue. Without temptation to unrighteousness there
could be no righteousness. For some reason Gk>d designed
that man should be a moral agent, not a mere machine,
a moral agent with the possibility of forming moral
character, of cultivating virtue, growing in OodUkenesB.
The idea that this could be possible without temptation
violates the very basic principle of morals. There could

L l,z<..t,C00gIf

Chnuit, Foundation for Soitiuu md BtKgipn M

be innocence without temptation bnt no virtae ftnd nonft
of the rewards of virtue eould have belonged to one
whose innocence had never been tried so that will power
had to be exerted toward the right. It is resisting temp*
tation by the power of one's own will tiist conititates
virtue, and it is persistence in this that builds up virtu-
ous moral character, Godlikenesa.

Men have been unnecessari^ puzzled over the ques-
tion why evil was allowed to come into the world. The
basis of what we call evil is in the benevolence of Qod.
This benevolence has shown itself in the construction of
the universe so that it can be a school of ethics, a gym-
nasium for the practice of virtue, the development of
moral character. This comes in two ways. First, thi
awful consequences of sin in the suffering it produces
appeals to others, and the efforts to help and save have
built up some of the most Godlike characters on earth.
Farther than this, if there had been but one person in the
world, he could have developed character only as, by the
power of his own will, he had resisted the evil tendencies
or inclinations that are within himself. While thus the
basis of evil is potentially in the goodness of God, the
actual, realized evU is the result of man's own choosing.

The stars move in their courses, yielding to the in- .
Snences that control them, and make no devious ways.
But there is no virtue in the outward correctness of their
actions. God could have made men in the same way, but
there would have been no more merit or virtue in them
than in the stars. He did not choose to make them in that
way. He did choose to make them and their envircn-
ment so that infinite possibilities were within their reacX
It follows then that unless temptation had come into
the world, the whole machinery of the oniverse would

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

100 0tn4ii$, Foundation for Soitnct and Stligion

have been worthless for the pnrpose of dereloping free
agents into Tirtaons moral characters.

A celebrated evangelist was recently asked, "If God is
all-powerfnl and all-good, why doesn't he kill the devil f"
The answer could have been, because the purpose of Qod
now is the same that it was at the outset — to give men a
chance to build up moral character by resisting tempta-
tion. And there is no inherent improbability in the
statements regarding a personal devil who in the guise
of a serpent or in the person of the serpent presented
the first temptation. The story would seem violently
improbable were it not for the connection in which it oc-
curs. But the universe exists, and we have the record
of its origin in a way that admits of no dispute that it
came as a revelation from its Maker. The whole story is
of miracnloos events. It is itself a miracle in the sense
in which the word is commonly used. The stoiy of the
fall is a part of that record. It is not to be tossed aside
with a smile of self-complacent incredulity. It will not
be so treated by those who are wise enough to feel their
own ignorance and bow to the wisdom of the Highest.
He has evidently revealed the truth to us in the records
He has inspired. The fact of the fall is one of the bottom
facta in human history, appallingly apparent every-
where.

But the question arises, was the temptation presented
by a person, or by an innate propensity to evilt It ia
wiser to answer from the records than from any precon-
ceived ideas of bow it ought to be answered. There is
evidence that the tempter was a person in the sense in
which the terra persona is applied to other spiritual
beings. The idea does not necessarily involve that of
locality or form, or space. God is a person and yet not

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

QmnaU, Foundation for Scfeiice .01^ Eeligion. ■ lOX

Bnbject to these material limitations. In the records
there is the same evideoce of the personalitf of Satan
that there is of the personality of Gk>d- If there is any
difference it is in degree and not in kind. M*" has fal-
len and that fall necessitates Redemption.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER VI

The Story of Redemption

THIS story begins in Geoesis and is continued
through all the book tbat is founded upon Gen-
esis I. The promise was made in Eden that the
seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's
head. Prom there it runs through nearly or quite every
book of the Bible until it reaches its climax in the resur-
rection of Christ Redemption itself including th«
atonement has its necesBaiy origin is two facts, Justice
and Sin. In the very nature of things Divine justice
requires that sin should be punished. As in the material
universe, from a given force what ia lost as force must be
made up in heat, light, electricity or some other of the
correlated forces of nature, so in the moral universe,
what ia lost from righteousness must be made up in suf-
fering. Sin must suffer its penalty. And this is true
whether as an attribute justice inheres in the nature of
God to be administered independently of governmental
relations, or whether it exists merely as a governmental
necessity. And whether' the "nature of things" existed
first and God adapted Himself to it, or whether He ex-
isted first and adapted "the natnre of things" to Him-
self, is not essential in this discussion.

Fnrther, whether anything exists apart from the ex-
istence of God, or whether all things are but a manifesta-
tion of God, it is not necessary to consider, for no such
considerations affect the fact that justice exists and
justice demands that crime against our fellow men be
punished, even if from no other reason than as a restraint
of crime. Justice requires that sin should meet its
102

:.bv Google

Genesis, FouTtdaHon for Science and BeKgion 103

penalty even if for no other reason than to reatrain men
from sin. But judifing from the analo^es of nature, the
correlation of forces, to say nothing of theological ar-
guments, the Calvinistic idea that justice la an attribute
inherent in God and the nature of things is most nearly
eorrect. Thia requires that ain should be punished, that
crime should meet its penalty independently of govern-
mental relations. Justice may have a deeper origin and
reach higher than governmental necessity. This neee«-
sity may be a sufGcirait warrant for justice in the poiiiah-
ment of crime in human socie^, but in the punishment
of sin against Qod, punishment future and invisible to
mortals, the sufficiency of this governmental necessity
is not so apparent. However, it becomes more apparent
as we remember that there are other intelligences than
human beings who are affected by it.

But independent of these and all other considerations,
justice demands the punishment of crime and sin. Ck>n-
sider this necessity first in human affairs, as there it is
most apparent. What would be the condition of human
society if all laws were done away with, or all penal-
ties abrogated! Any such thing as order, peace or
safety would be impossible. Through the lazness in
the dispensation of justice, we have already approached
a social condition that is well nigh intolerable. Con-
temporaneous with and following the teaehii^ of loose
theological ideas concerning Divine justice and loose
administration of judicial justice, we are in the con-
dition described by Hosea, (4:2) "By swearing and
lying and killing and stealing and committing adultery,
they break out and blood toueheth blood." This is the
natural and necessary result of following the legal
ni f y if n, "It is better that ten guilty men escape than

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

101 Oenetis, Foundation for Saence and Religion

that one mnocent man be punished." The maxim ia
false. The fact is coming to exist, that ten innocent per-
sons do suffer for eTery guilty person who escapes due
punishment.

It was to secure the gfreatest good of the greatest num-
ber that Qod himself gave laws for the r^olation of
society. The gist of those lawa, the ten commandments,
was but the expression in words of eternal principles that
inhere in the very nature of things. This is a fact,
though it can be only stated here. The violation of
those principles involves evil consequences as a matter
of necessity. But in addition to those natural evil con-
sequences of inherent principles, there are statutory
penalties decreed. By statutory enactment or by con-
crete example, that penalty in every instance was death,
even to extreme cases of the mildest of the command-
ments. This again must pass with the mere statement
except with a few examples. "Thou sfaalt not kill," the
statutory penalty was death; "steal," "He that stealeth
a man .... shall be put to death " ; " covet, ' ' Achao
coveted the gold and garment and suffered the penalty;
' * false witness, ' ' the law prescribed that it should be done
to him as he thought to do to the one against whom he
bore false witness. If by false witness he was compassiiig
the death of another, he was himself to suffer the extreme
penal^ ; ' ' adultery, ' ' the statutory penalty was death for
both parties. So of every one of the ten commandments,
death was the penalty for the worst forms of violatioa
and there were other penalties for &e milder forma of
their violation.

It is to be noted too that the penalty is not mere
chastisement designed to reform the crimiuaL tt is not
reformatory punishment, but a aatisfaction of justiee

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Omnis, Foundation for Samct and BtUgicm lOS

whether that jiistice be independent of or dependent
upon goyemmental necessity. But for offenees smaller
than capital crimes the punishment is reformatory in so
far as it strikes at the propensity that produces the crime.
Avarice produces theft, the penalty strikes at the propen-
sity that produces it, restoration many times over.
Where this can not be, the penalty resembles the offence
as a reminder of it, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, burn-
ing for burning. These were the statutory penalties and
not mere natural consequences.

It is worthy of note further, that the infliction of these
penalties was intrusted to those who would be most likely
to carry them out, the nearest of Mn, those whose defen-
sive passions would assist in meting out justice by assist-
ing to overcome pity. "Thine eye shall not pity, nor
thy hand spare. ' ' The good of society, the existence of
society in conditions in which existence was tolerable
demanded that justice should be meted out It is notice-
able too that every one was forbidden to attempt the
perversion of justice. "Thou shalt not .... counten-
ance the poor man in his cause" (Ex. 23:2,3), or the man
who has a poor cause. No official or professional was al-
lowed to espouse a poor cause, or from professional pride,
ambition, or money to clear the gnil^. A woe is pro-
nounced upon those who "justify the wicked for reward"
(Is. 5:23). But on account of &e prevalence of that
practice and other evils, "Therefore is the anger of the
Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched
forth bis hand against them and smitten them." (Is.
5:25). ScripturaUy there is a kind of false witness
against society in clearing criminals that requires the
same penalties to be inflicted upon the one who thus
cheats the law as ought to have been inflicted upon the

I ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

106 Otiutis, Foundation for Sdtncg and SeUgion

culprit himself. If any person cheats jtistice by clearing
the guilty, the same justice should be meted out to him,
and professionalism does not count with God. "The
Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffer-
ing and abundant in goodness and truth, • • • • and
that will by no means clear tiie guilty." (Ex. 34:6,7).
His moral 'excellencies manifested toward his people will
not permit him to clear the guilty.

This principle is written in nature. There is a moral
conservation of the forces of justice and righteousness
that what is lacking in one must be made up in the other,
and professionalism does not count in this matter. If
any man cheats justice the same justice should be meted
out to him. The welfare of society, the nature of God
and "the nature of things" require that justice should
be administered even if it has t» be done in spite of the
modem machinery for defeating it. Modem courts are
not God's vicegerents to the extent that he has appointed
them and is always satisfied with their decisions. Not
that they are consciously corrupt. It is probable that
they never were more upright. But the safeguards de-
signed to protect the innocent are woefully perverted to
clear the guilty. Whatever its origin, whatever ilt na-
ture, whatever the necessity for its existence, there is
such a thing as justice, and the welfare of humanity
requires that it be administered and that crimes against
humanity be punished.

So much for human law and the necessity for justice
in human affairs. Has it a broader field of activity!
Does it exist only in the relations of man with man, or
does it extend beyond these relations and into the sphere
of the Divine government T Evidently it has this
broader field, and enters into the sphere of the Divine

Genesit, Foundation for Science and Beliffion 107

govemmeDt. ThiB is necessarily the case, if God is a par-
son who has rights of his own, and can think and feel
and win. The first table of the decalogue has primarily
to do with sins against Qod. Crimes against men are
■ins against Ood, but farther than this is the fact that
there are sins directly against Ood. Idolatry, not only
in the oatward act, bat in the inner thought is sin.
Blasphemy, the lightly taMng of Qod's name upon our
lips, is sin, any form of disobedience is sin, even where
our fellow-men are not injured. It is noticeable that there
are statutory penalties attached to these sins as well aa
eril consequences resulting from them. In the loi^ run,
these evil consequences may be terrible, but they do not
sufficiently express the divine attitude towards sin. The
divine attitude is expressed by the statutory penalties at>
tached to violations of the commandments. Death waa
the penalty of idolatry, of enticement to idolatry, of
blasphemy and of some other sins against Qod. In general
"the soul that sinneth, it shall die." Death (sentence)
passed upon all men "for all had sinned." Whatever
its natwe, whatever its origin, whatever the necessity
for its existence, there is such a thing as justice, and the
well being of all sentient beings demands that it be ad-
nunistered and that sins against Ood should be punished.
How then can any one escape 1 The problem was too
deep for human wisdom. The wisest statesmen of old
eoold not see how it was possible to forgive ain without
causing the law itself to come into contempt and be dis-
regarded according^. But God solved the problem that
was too deep for men, and made provision for all fatar«
emei^enciea. That provision is the planting in men of
the instinctive idea of the efficacy of substitution. When
men make a machine some of whose parts are likely to

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

108 Oenetit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

get oat of order, they make it with refereneo to tlie pos*
sibility of renovating those parts. They thus make provi-
sion for future eoutingencies. When Ood made man,
he made the same provision and that provision was made
by planting in him the sentiment or instinctive knowl-
edge that vicariona Bubstitutiou was efleotoal and this
makes vicarious sacrifice sufficient. The first men bom
into the world betray the presence of the instinetive,
God-implanted sentiment, for, conscious of sin, they
offered sacrifices, and Cain's offering was rejected,
althoi^h it was a sacrifice of possessions, while Abel's
was accepted because in addition to this, there was in-
volved vicarious suffering, a type of the Lamb that in the
future was to suffer for the sins of the world.

Men of all nations have shown the presence of the
same sentiment, for all nations, generally speaking, have
felt the necessity for expiatory sacrifices. All nations
have offered them.

When God made man he made bia spiritual nature with
reference to the possibility of saving him should he need
salvation, as hia Maker certainly knew that he would.
That possibility is in the instinct implanted in all biunan,
and, we may reason, in all sentient beings, of the efBcaoy
of vicarious sacrifice. This is the adjustment, so to
speak, of man's spiritual nature to the possibility of
salvation without himself payii^ the penalty of sin. All
the htunan race, angels and demons, are so constituted as
to recognize the efficiency of a voluntary substitution in
suffering penalty. If one transgresses the law, another
may by his own voluntary suffering satisfy justice so
that the transgressor may escape the penalty. Incidents
reported from Central Africa show the existence of an
instinctive sense not only that d^nerit, sin, most be

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Geiutit, Foundation for Scienc$ and BtUgion 109

pTmjahed, but that another and innocent party may
voluntarily bear the penalty, and let the transgressor go
free. If a current story be true, our own government
has accepted a voluntary substitute in the place of the
guilty party. In one of the Southwestern Territories an
Indian murdered a white man. As usual, the govem-
ment held the tribe responsible, and gave them a limited
time in which to surrender the guilty party, or have war
declared against them, and troops were sent to the plac«
to carry out the order. £very effort was put forth to find
the guilty party, but without success. Finally on the
evening of the last day an Indian offered himself to the
assembled chiefs as a substitute. "Take me," he says,
"shoot me, and turn my body over to the white." It wan
done, and what could the whites do but accept it in the
place of the guilty onet

Such voluntary offering of one 's self as that of Pnbliua
Secius, or that of the Athenian king, Menaecius of
Thebes, or of the daughter of Orion, prove the existence
of this instinct in the people of those nations, which en-
abled them to see that Qod could be just and yet the
jnstifier of aU those who accept of their own vicarious
substitute. The spiritual constitution of tiie race was
adapted from the beginning to this plan of salvation.

That it is in accordance with God's purposes need not
be argued with any one who believes that God was the
author of the Mosaic law. Sacrifices, countless in num-
ber, of innocent animals were commanded to be offered
as types of the one great sacrifice of Calvary. Atone-
ment in the orthodox sense is in harmony with all Qod's
teachings, verbal and by symbol.

The efficacy of vicarious substitution is written in the
eonstitiition of nature. It is supplied in the kingdom

Doiizc^bv Google

110 Chneiit, Foundation for Science and RtUgi»n

of grace by the Ticarioos atonement made by Gh}d himaelf
in the person of Jesus the Christ. But note, the Bubsti'
tation must be, as it was, Ticanonfi and wiUing on the
part of the substitute. The Christ was not unjustly com-
pelled to take the sinner's place. Upon his Father's
wish he Toluntarily offered himself saying, "Lo I come
to do thy will, God." While it might have been unjust
for God to have compelled bis sou or any other innocent
party to suffer vicarious^, it was not unjust for him to
accept a substitute freely offered and Jesus says, "I lay
down my life for the sheep."

But how could this sacrifice avail for those who died
before it was offered T The written promise of the gov-
ernment to pay is as good as the gold, and the promise
of God to redeem mankind was just as good before it
was redeemed aa after. In the coulisela of God, and the
knowledge of all sentient beings who were immediately
affected, was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world. ' ' Even Abel, upon appearing at the gates of
paradise, could have been admitted upon promise of the
Son of God to pay the penalty of his sins four thousand
years hence on Calvary. In the correlation of spiritual
forces, what was lost by the fall is made up in redemp-
tion.

These things are stated as facts and as snch they are
corroborated by certain passages of scripture, while the
probabilily that they are such lends additional proba-
bility to the scripture statements themselves. As facts,
they interpret a symbolism of the old dispensation, while
that symbolism verifies the statements as facts. They
mutually sustain, explain and verify each other. The
whole Jewish ritual based upon sacrifices was ^ical
of ibA atonement of Christ. The first sacrifiees offered

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Ommw, Foundation for 8ei«ne$ and BeUgion Al

in tlie world were accepted or rejected according as they
did or did not typify the atonement. AU the Ood-ap-
pointed Jewish ritnal was dead, unmeaning heathenism,
unless its rites were types and qrmbols of something in
the future. But they were not dead ; they were not un-
meaning heathenism, but God-appointed object lessons
regarding "the Lamb of (Sod that taketh away the sins
of the world." As stated, Abel's sacrifice was accepted
because of its ^'mbolism and from his day to the time
when the great Antitype was slain on Calvary, every
sacrifice was accepted only as it pointed to the Lamb of
Calvary,

As just stated, all these circumstances, ^pes, symbols,
ritual tend to corroborate, interpret, verify certain state-
ments in the scriptures. Theie are literally hundreds of
these that have their plainest, easiest, most harmonious
signification in view of the fact that Christ really took
the sinner's place, really suffered the p^ialty of broken
law, "the just for the unjost," that Qod might be just
and justify tliose who would accept that sacrifice. This
is the crux of the whole question as to the true nature
of the atonement.

Did Jesus die, not simply for us in the sense of dying
for our welfare, but in our stead t Did he come to teach
men duty, how to live by setting a good example, and
then die as a martyr because he could not help himself 1
As for his example, the world had better examples in
Enoch, Abraham, Moses and others of the old prophets
and patriarchs than they had ever lived up to. As for
his teaching, he taught nothing but what was already
written in the old scriptures, and as for his marfyrdom,
it is puerile to say that he died because he could not help
hinueU. One who could raise the dead could have saved

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

119 &<n«m, Foundation for Scitnc§ and B^igion

himself from the power of human enemlea. He could
have stepped over the prostrate forms of those who came
to arrest him in Gethsemane ; he eould h^ve stayed away
from Jerusalem altogether, for he knew what was com-
ing, or he could have summoned "twelve legions of
angels" ' to his defense as he told Peter.

On the Mount of Transfiguration Moses and Elijah
talked with him concerning ' ' the decease that he should
accomplish in Jerusalem. " ' Jesus himself says, "Now
is my soul troubled and what shall I sayf Father
save me from this hour but for this cause came I unto
this hour. ' ' * Almost his first recorded words refer to
the necessity for his death, ' ' For as Moses lifted up the
serpent in the wilderness, so mutt the son of man be
lifted up."* A curse was pronounced upon all who
violated God's law, "It is written. Cursed be he
that confirmeth not all thii^ which are written in
this law to do them."* Man had broken every one
of them, but Christ redeemed us from the "curae."
' ' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us: for it is written. Cursed
is every one that hai^eth on a tree." QaL 3:10, 13.)
He continually spoke of his death as the great object to
be "accomplished."

Now was that voluntary death a substitution for the
sinner's merited punishment T The question must be
answered by the scriptures and by the logic of events,

'Mat 26:53.
» Luke 9:31.
'John 12:27.
* John 3:14.
•Deut 27:26.

:.bv Google

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 113

the facts of history. In prophecy some of the classic
passages are in Is. 53. ' ' He was wounded for our trans-
gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the chastise-
ment of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes
we are healed. " " The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all." "For the transgressions of my people was
he stricken." "When thou shalt make his soul an offer-
ing for sin, he shall see his seed" and so on. "By bis
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ; for
he shall bear their iniqvities." "He hath poured out his
soul unto death: and he was numbered with the trana-
gresaora ; and be bare the Hn of many, and made interces-
sion for the transgressors." These are a few passages
from prophecy, all taken from a single chapter. But do
they refer to Christ t Jesus thought they did, for be says
to his disciples, "For I say unto you, that this that is
written must yet be accomplished tn me, 'And be was
reckoned among the tran^ressors.' " (Luke 22:37.) The
evangelist Mark thought they did, for speaking of his
being crucified between two thieves, be says, "And the
scripture was fuUled which saith, "And he was numbered
with the transgressors/" Inferentially, also, they con-
sidered all the passages in the same chapter as apply-
ing to him as other inspired writers did. The Ethiopian
eunuch was reading Is. 53 (see Acts 8:32 and on) when
Philip interpreted the whole passage aa being fulfilled in
Christ. The epistles are full of indireet references to the
same passages as referring to Christ, as (Heb. 9:28),
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many."
I Peter 2:24, "Who his own self bare our sins io his own
body on the tree." Christ himself says, "The eon of

> Hark 15:28.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

114 Omutu, Faundation for Science and SsUgio*

num came not to be miniBtered onto, but to minister and
to give bis life a ransom for many. " (Matt 20 :28) . "This
is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many
for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28). "As Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, bo must the son
of man be lifted up" and so on. Paul exhorts the elders
of the chnreh of Ephesus, ' ' Feed the church of Ood which
he hath purchased with his own blood.'" A^ain he
speaks of "being justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."* When we
were yet without strength in due time Christ died for
the ungodly.'" "God commendeth his love toward as,
in that while we were yet Binners Christ died for us. " *
"We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ
by ^lom we have received the atonement." "Christ
our passover is sacrificed for us." "Christ died for
our sins according to the scriptures." "Ye who some-
time were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. ' '
"Christ hath loved us and hath given himself for us an
offering and a sacrifice to God." "By his own blood he
entered in once into the holyplace having obtained eter-
nal redemption for ob." "Without the shedding of
blood is no remission." "But now once in the end of
the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the
Boerifies of himself." "Christ was once offered to bear
the sins of many." "We are sanctified through the offer-
ing of the body of Jesus Christ once for alL" "Ye know
that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as

< Acts 20:28.
* Bom. 3 :24.
*Rom. 5:6.
*Bom. 5:8.

:.bv Google

Oenesis, foundation for Scunce and BeUffton 115

silver and gold. . bat with the precious blood of

Christ 88 of a iamb without blemish and without spot."
"Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust that he might bring ns to God, beii^ put to death
in the flesh but quickened in the spirit" "If we walk
in the light, as he is in the light .... the blood
of Jesus Christ his son eleanseth us from all sin."
In every way, by all forms of expression by which it is
possible for words to convey ideas, the idea of Christ as
a substitute for sinners is taught in the scriptures.

This teaching is not confined to the meaning of any
Greek preposition as "pro" and "huper" though it is
distinctly taught by them. Some people urge that those
prepositions have a broader meaning than "in our room"
or "in our stead," while admitting that if "anti" were
used there would be no possibility of denying that the
idea of substitution was conveyed. But the prepositions
"pro" and "huper" often do mean "instead of" while
both Christ and Paul use that preposition "anti" (in
composition) as Paul, (I Tim. 2:6) speaking of Christ,
"Who gave himself a ransom for all." {anti lutron).
Christ gave himself a ransom instead of the sinner.
Christ uses the same preposition in the same way, "Even
as the son of man came not to be ministered unto but to
minister and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mat.
20:28.) {lutron anti pollon). Christ declares unequi-
vocally that he came on purpose to give his life a ransom
instead of many.

A final consideration in this connection is the statement
of Paul, in arguing for the resurrection. He says, (I
Cor. 15:17,18.) "If Christ be not raised your faith is
vain, ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which
are fallen asleep in Christ are perished." But why would
they have been yet in their Bina f There is no ratioual

I Coogic

116 Qtntait, F9«ndation for jSm*m< imd Reiigion

aofiwer except that tmless Christ had accomplished his
work no sins could be forgiven. The apostle does not
ar^e that they were lacking on their part. He does not
deny that they had accepted Christ, and had fully and
heartily repented of their sins. He bases his declaration
entirely upon the fact, apparently, that unless Christ's
work were fully accomplished no sins could be forgiven,
the living were in their sins in spite of repentance and
their acceptance of Christ, the dead were lost in spite of
their, possibly, martyrdom. The Greek word translated
"atonement, (hatallange) is from "katalasso" "to ex-
change." The term means "substitution." The atone-
ment of Christ is the substitution of his sufferings for
the punishment of sinners. And yet in spite of the fact
that the atonement is written in nature, on the soul of
man, taught all through the Bible the most plainly of
any Bible truth, in spite of the symboUsm of the original
Hebrew word and the meaning of the Qreek original,
there is no fact so persistently, so illi^cally, so incon-
sistently denied as the fact of the atonement in its proper
meaning. The objections are illogical for they are
answered by the logic of events; the fact is tliat Christ
did die, that Qod gave him to die. Christ came into the
world to die, and unless he accomplished something by
his death, and an end to some degree commensurate with
the sacrifice, his death would have been a mere empty
iihow,a mere playing to the galleries, aa futile as wicked.
It is sometimes said that this scriptural view of the
atonement represents God as unmerciful. But so far as
this view has any weight, it is an objection against the
fact that Christ died at all. Whether merciful or un-
merciful, Christ did die upon the cross. This is the ad-
mitted fact and it surely would have been no more un-

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

OeneHs, Foundation for Sdenee and BeUgion 117

merciful for Qod to send him into the world to die for a
great purpose than to die for nothing. The fact is,
Christ died. God "gave his only begotten son," Christ
gave himself. What fori He says, "lutron anti poUon."
It is said that an atonement was not necessary. That is
not for us to decide. If it bad not been necessary to
accomplish some object, Christ woald have stayed in
heaven. The fact however is He gave his life. What fori
He says, "lutron anti poUon." The symbolism in the
old dispensation all pointed to an atonement The sacri-
fices and offerings from Abel to Calvary pointed to an
atonement. Christ gave himself an offering and a sacri-
fice to God. He says, "This is my blood of the new
testament which is shed for many for the remission of
sins."* God knew better than men abont the neces*
aity for an atonement. It is sometimes urged that an
atonement in the scripture sense is unjust, incredible,
and of a demoralizing tendency. Bnt so far as these are
objections, they are objections to the fact that Christ
died. But Christ did die. What fort He says, "lutron
anti pollon."

In general the answer to all objections is an appeal to
facts. Is it urged that 6i>d is too good to allow the in-
nocent to suffer for the guilty f The one fact most ap-
pallingly apparent everywhere and always is that the
innocent do suffer for the guilty, mach more than the
guilty themselves, and often instead of the guilty.
Is it urged in particular that God is too good to send His .
only begotten son into the world to die for men! Bat He
did die. The argument for such goodness is an argum^t
against the one great central fact of the universe. Ad-

*Mat 26:28.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

118 0*nms, Foundation for 8eisnc4 and BeUgion

mitting this, would it have been more cmel for Qod to
have suffered Him to die to accomplish a great object
than for a mere empty showt And onless He did ac>
complish something more than a show, the show itself,
except as a monument of folly, was absolutely empty,
meaningless.

This fact is well illustrated by the familiar incident
of a boy in Holland. Passing along a dike be discovered
a small break that he could stop with his hand. But
soon it would be too big for him to control Before he
could get help or devise means by which to stop the flow
of water, it might pass beyond control and immeasur-
able disaster befall his people. There was nothing to do
but to stop it with his hand, and so he lay all the chUly
night and was found nearly dead in the morning. The
gratitude of his people knew no bounds, for by lua night
of agony, he had saved their houses, perhaps their lives.
He showed his love for his people by suffering to save
than. But suppose he bad spent a terrible night upon
the cold ground of an unbroken dike, and bad been found
by a passer-by in the morning.

"What are yon doing there, chilled almost to death
1^ exposure throt^h the nightf"

"I am makiag a display of love for the people,"

What would the answer bel

"Display, indeed! Get up, and go home."

A Russian nobleman, traveling with his family and a
faithful servant, was overtaken by wolves. Every power
was exerted, every resource exhausted, to reach a place
of safety. Finally there was but one thing to do. One
of them must be a sacrifice to save the rest The servant
volunteered, tellii^ bis master that he bad hitherto shown
his love by the service of his life he m>uld show it now by

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oeneais, Foundation for Science and ReUgion 119

sacriflciug himself to save them. He leaped to the
ground. In the plaee where he was torn to pieces as a
vicarious sacrifice that nobleman erected a monument
bearing the words, ' ' Greater love hath no man than tiiis,
that a man l&y down his life for his friends." He sacri-
ficed himself for a purpose, and an object was Becared.
But suppose he had gone out into the woods where there
was nothing at stake to find the wolves to devour himt
The master would have told him, "Tou can show your
love for me more effectually by living and serving me
faithfully through the rest of your life." Now, what
would have been the influence of Christ's death if no
farther object were secured than a mere display t Just
that of the boy freezing himself without an object, just
that of the servant sacrificing himself when nothing was
at stake — nothing. Christ's death exerts a moral influ-
ence because an object of infinite importance was secured.
He redeemed hnmanity by the sacrifice of Himself. They
must indeed have confidence in histrionic display who
believe that an empty, purposeless death on Christ's part
could exert a moral influence. But to those who believe
that, "He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,"
there is a drawing influence of incalculable power. He
has made the atonement, the true, the only atonement for
sin and thus He is the "Lamb of Ood that taketh away
the sins of the world." Here is the great fact of objec-
tive salvation. Here the mystery is explained, how Qod
can be just and yet forgive sins. Christ has suffered in
our stead, has borne the penalty for our sins, and this is
the great foundation act upon which subjective salvation
is established.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER VII
Subjective Salvation

BUT this provision for setting aside the penalty
of broken law in behalf of those who accept
the substitute is only a part of redemption.
The other part is expressed by the apostle.
"He died for all that they which live should not henee-
forth live unto themselves but unto him which died
for them and rose again." (II. Cor. 5:15.) Salva-
tion is not simply a saving from a statutory penally
for sin It is that and much more. It is a state of
heart, a new life, imparted by God Himself to those
who will come to Him. But how shall they come!
They most be drawn to Him by the power of an in-
finite love manifested by an uplifted Christ bearing
om- sins in His own' body on the tree. Aa iron filings
in a heap of sand or sawdust respond to the draw-
ing power of the magnet, so there are human natures
among the masses of men which respond to the drawing
power of this infinite love. As magnetism induces mag-
netism, so love begets love, and this is the new life ; for
Ood is love, and one bom of Qod has God's nature.
What love t The love that is responsive to and begotten
by the love of Ood manifest in the flesh to make atone-
ment for our sins.

Paul explains it. "For the love of Christ constraineth
us because we thus jut^e, that if one died for all, then
were all dead ; and that He died for all that they which
live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto
Him which died for them and rose again. ' *
After all, the great final purpose of Christ's death waa
120

:.bv Google

Qtntaii, Foundation for Scitnc* and BeUgion 121

to provide this new motive — this impelling power in thia
new life — in mankind. ' ' He died for aU that they which
live should not henceforth live onto themselves, but unto
Him which died for them and rose again."

Here is displayed the full power of the moral influence
of Christ's death. Here is shown in the fullness of its
scope ' ' the expulsive power of a new affection. ' ' Those
who have been born again, and thus have been made
partakers of the divine nature, are no loiter selfish, no
longer live unto themselves, "but unto Him which died
for them and rose again. " It is not strange that this side
of redemption should All the angle of vision of some
minds, but it is strange that they have not seen that all
the influence which would secure subjective salvation is
based upon objective redemption. The "moral influence
theory" of the atonement is correct so far as it goes,
but is wrong in so far as it rejects objective redemption.
The scripture view includes both the so called orthodox
view and the "moral influence theory" and builds the
latter upon the former. Each is incomplete without the
other. Gratitude to Qod for what he has done for us
should be an inspiration to higher, nobler livii^. Fur-
ther than that, the suffering, the work of the Christ for
man's objective redemption is a revelation of the nature
of God that could not have been made in any other way.
God, in the person of man, going about doing good, bear-
ing our sickness, healii^ our diseases, and yet "despised
and rejected of men, ' ' scoffed at, spit upon, buffeted, cm
eified and all for love of the race that murdered Him!
What a revelation of the nature of Qod! There is in
one of the great galleries of Europe, a picture of
"Angels adoring the dead Christ." It is said that the
looks of admiration, love, astonishment, and worship

t,CoogIf

122 Cteneais, foundation for Science and ReUgwn

pictured in their faces are marvellous. Angels w<»^liip
Him not for any personal benefit tliey have received, bat
because before them they have the proof of an excellence
of nature, a nobility of chkracter such as they had never
dreamed of in all the ages they bad known and loved
Him aa the only begotten Soil of God. But this suffering
for men was an exhibition of his true nature ; it was the
index of a character that marked him in heaven and on
earth as "the chi^est among ten thousand" and "the
one altogether lovely."

No sentient being, human or ai^llc, who can appre-
ciate moral excellence, admire true heroism, or marvel at
infinite self-sacrifice, can fail to be drawn to such a One.
This is the snpreme culmination of spiritual inflnenee.
But yet however great this drawing power may be, and
however great the subject of it is, it is but the beginning
of subjective redemption. It is but the paidagogos to
lead us to Christ and he imparts to us of that divine life
which Adam lost by hia transgression. God said to
Adam, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die. (Gen. 2:17.) But the death referred to was
not the separation of the spirit from the flesh. That did
not take place until nearly a thousand years afterward.
But it was the loss of the divine, the God-imaged life
which in later years is termed eternal life. This differs
from the natural life not simply in duration but in
quaUty, in Idnd. It was the life that allied him to God
and that was the image of God. Adam lost it by yielding
to the solicitations of selfish gratification. When he
yields to the solicitations of divine, unselfish love that
life is restored to him by the act of God. ' ' If any man
be in Christ he is a new creature." (II. Cor. 5:17.) "In
Christ Jesus neither dremncision availeth ai^rthing, nor

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

0«n»»i, Fomndation for Sdenet and Religion 123

uncironmciBum but a new creature," (GaL6:15.) the cre-
ation of a new life, the kind of life that Adam lost by
transgreaaion. "As many as received him to them gave
be power .to become the sodb of God, even to them that
believed on his name ; which were bom, not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of
God." (John 1:12,13.)

This is subjective salvation, the change in the man
himself, or rather the creation in him of a new kind of
life, and Uiis kind of life may be as different from the
unrenewed man's immortal spirit as that spirit differs
from common animal life. No being ean beget a kind
of life that itself does not possess. Vegetable life cannot
b^et ftTtimftl life ; common animal life cannot beget the
immortal spiritual life of man. It is different in kind.
The common immortal spirit life of man cannot beget the
divine life, the God-imaged life that is termed eternal life.
Adam lost that life himself, he oonid not beget it in his
oflapring. It must be created anew in those who would
possess it. This process is that described by the Christ,
"Ye must be born again." This is being "bom of the
spirit." It m only thus that any of Adam's race can
become "the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty."
This view is logical, consistent, reasonable, scientific, as
well as scriptural. All the scriptural declarations along
this line are not only reasonable but seem to be bnt ex-
pressions in words of conditions that must inhere in the
very "nature of things." This new birth is subjective
salvation, the complement of objective redemption. It
cannot be otherwise than that the Savior's "ye mtut
be bom again" is the expression of an absolute moral
necessity, the sine qua non of true spiritual life.

Bere it is pertinent to inquire what muat be the con-

U.,r,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

124 Oenesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

dition of those who by heredity have acqnired only the
Adam life, or who, having inherited the divine life from
Christian parents, have lost it by their own voluntary
transgression and refused to yield to the drawing of the
uplifted Christ T How about those who can look upon the
suffering, sin-bearing, grief -laden Savior in Gethaemane
or on Calvary and still reject himt "0 Jerosalem,
Jerusalem, thou that Mllest the prophets and stonedst
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children t(%ether, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings and ye would not. Behold
your house is left unto you desolate. " (Mat. 23 :38.) No
tongue nor pen can describe the desolations that swept
Jerusalem — a warning to those who reject him now. "Ye
will not come unto me that ye might have life ' ' { John 5 :
40) is the saddest wail from the bleeding heart of Jesns.
The wail implies that men cannot have the divine life
without coming to him and that the many will not come.
"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under
two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment,
suppose ye, shall he be thoi^ht worthy, who hath trodden
under foot the Son of Ood, and hath counted the blood
of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unhofy
thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace!"
(Heb. 10:28,29.) Can it be possible that such persona
possess the new, the eternal life f Can it be that th^ are
subjectively saved while sptuming the objective salva-
tion 1 These questions need no answer, for the answer
is in the very nature of things. The gospel of Christ is
the "power of God unto salvation to every one that
beUevetk," but it cannot be otherwise than the source
of the greater guilt, ill desert, condemnation in those who
reject it,

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Ofn$$it, S'oundati4m for Science and BeXigion 125

This brings us to consider the function of belief, or
the necessity for a creed. There is a great deal said
about and against creeds. Undoubtedly much of this op-
position to creeds has arisen from an undne magnifying
of unessential particulars into barriers of separation
between different bodies of Christians. But here arises
the difficulty of deciding to the satisfaction of all parties
what are the essential and what the unessential articles
of faith. Articles that some would consider trivial by
others are esteemed fundamental and, after all, it may be
better to have some decided couTictions even upon non-
easentials than to be without them with reference to the
essential doctrines. But are there any articles in the
creeds that are essential for salvation f Are we saved by
a creed f Rationally and scriptnrally, yes. A creed is
ezactiy what we are saved by. "He that cometh to God
most believe ^baX he is " and so on. No one could come to
God who did not believe that there was a God. Neither
coiild one experience subjective salvation who did not
believe in Christ. Creed is from credo, "I believe." Be-
lief is but another name for faith. "Without faith it is
impossible to please God." The eleventh chapter of
Hebrews is bat a record of the wonders wrought 1^
faith. Jesus the Christ is none the less emphatic. Ev^ry
hope of benefit from Him is conditioned upon belief, every
promise of salvation is limited to those who believe. ' ' The
Son of Man most be lifted up that whosoever heUeveth
on him should not perish." ' "He that helieveth not is
condemned already because he hath not believed in the
name of the only begotten Son of God."* Condemna-

>Johu 3:14.
* John 3:18.

:.bv Google

126 Qenaais, Foundation for Sdencg and BtUfiion

tion waa apon all men and oould be ascaped only by
belief. "For Qcd so loved the world . . . .that
whosoever beUeveth on him should not periah" and so
oo. ^ "As many as received him to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on
his name."* And this declaration is supplemented by
another, ' ' He that believeth on the Sou hath everlasting
life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ;
but the wrath of God abideth upon him. '

These are very exphcit declarations made by those
who ought to know. Further, they are not the mere
ipse dixit of anthority that eonld be made different by
power. They »re not dependent upon the volitions or
actions even of the Infinite, for they are conditioned upon
the limitations of the Infinita If the preceding reason-
ing has been correct, the above declarations are but the
expression in words of principles that inhere in the very
nature of things immutable and eternal And how many
times the same traths are expressed, varied in every con-
ceivable form of expression so that there can be no pos-
sibility of missing the truth and that ' ' the wayfaring men
though fools need not err" as to the w^y of salvation.
The gospel of Christ is the power of Gk>d unto salvation
to those that believe. What was the answer of Paul and
Silas to the jailer at Philippil "Believe in the Lord
Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. ' ' *

But the further citation of passages emphasising this
truth would be tedious. The dark ages were but the

* John 3 :16.
» John 1:12.
» John 3:36.
•Acts, 16:31.

:.bv Google

Gengiit, Foundation for Science and Beligion 127

shadow cast in the eclipse of the truth, saVuaiicn it by
fmth alone. A darker night will settle upon the earth if
for any reason that truth should be again eclipsed. But
how about works t Christ says, ' ' This is the work of God
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,'" and be
said it in answer to the question, "What shall we do that
we may work the works of GfodT" The work of believ-
ing is the one supreme work that is essential to salvation
and all other works must be the outcome — the result of
a saving faith. The necessary works that James speaka
of must be the fruits of the faith that Christ declares
essential and that Paul emphasizes. It would seem then
that there are some things to be believed and, formulated,
they would constitute a creed. Furthermore, we are
not at liberty to elect what we shall believe concerning
him, and to reject anything that may not tally with oar
opinions. Jesus says to the Pharisees, "I go my way,
and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins : whither
I go, ye cannot come." He says also, "Te are from
beneath, I am from above : ye are of this world ; I am
not of this world ; I said therefore onto yoa that ye shall
die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins. ' ' ' Jeans evidently thought that a
person must believe something definite, positive about
himself. Whati That he was the Messiah, so long ex-
pected, so definite^ described in prophecy, and all that
Messiahship implied. He declares very explicitly that
unless they believed that He was the Christ, with at
least an origin different from their own, "ye are from
beneath I am from above, ye are of this world, I am not

^ John, 6:29.
■John 8:23, 24.

:.bv Google

128 Genesis, foundation for Science and Religion

of this world." If you do not believe this he says, "Ye
shall die in your sina ; whither I go ye caimot come. ' '

According to Christ's view, belief in Ilia divinity was
essential to salvation. It may be now. At least, it is
safer to believe than to disbeheve. Christ's view is that
the evidences of his origin, his nature and his work are
BO convincing that unbelief ia the evidence of a moral
enlpabilify that would unfit them for his own companion-
ship and that of his companions. They must, then, neces-
sarily, like Judas, go to their own place. This in addi-
tion to paying the statutory penalty for the sin of unbe-
lief. Christ says that the Holy Spirit should convince
"of sin because they believe not on me.'" Whatever
men may or may not think, the sin of unbelief is the sin,
the great sin, the mother of all sins, for all violations of
the moral law, termed sins, are but the progeny of the
old mother-sin of unbelief in and on the uplifted Christ.
Scripture testimony is very full, explicit and strong as
to the origin and results of the sin of unbelief, or lack
ol belief. "How c&n ye believe which receive honor one
of another and seek not the honor that cometh from Ood
onlyt'" There are some things certainly that men
must believe concerning the Christ or they cannot inherit
eternal life. "The fearful and unbelieving and the
abominable, and murderers" and so on through that
catalogue in Rev. 21:8 "shall have their part in the lake
which bumeth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death." We may not add to nor take from the
words of the Christ in this regard.

One cannot enter the kingdom of heaven without a

* John 16 :9.

* John 5:44.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genetis, Foundation for Science and Religion 129

creed, concerning the Christ, his origin, hia natnre, hia
office, hia works and work. How many articles must the
creed contain t Individual opinions differ, but it is cer-
tain that the Christ and the inspired writers would make
it loiter than many modem ministers would have it. The
creed of the individual may be long or short according to
the intelligence of the person himiself. One may say, "I
believe in the universe, ' ' That is very comprehensive.
But as knowledge increases, this general statement may
include a practically infinite number of particulars
which when classified and arranged become the creed
statements regarding the universe. One may say, "I be-
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ ' ' That too is comprehen-
sive, and comprehends ahnost as much as the creed con-
cerning the universe and like it can be resolved, with
increasing knowledge, into, at least, a great many par-
ticulars which when classified and arranged become a
creed statement concerning him. The works of natnre
are worthy of study, of classifying and arrangii^. The
works and words of nature's Author are worthy of the
same, and, the more we learn of them, the longer our

The objections to the creed statements already in ex-
istence may arise from any one or more of several causes.
First, the creed statement may in reality fail to embody
the scripture teaching upon that subject; second, the
objector himself may fail to comprehend the depth of
truth contained in the statements ; third, an unwilling-
ness on the part of the objector to accept for his theology
the God of nature and the Bible. But tke God of nature
and the Bible is the God with whom we have to do, and
we may as well keep Him in our theology as thrust
Him out and in His place aubstitate one of oar own ere*

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

130 Genesis, Foundation for Science and BeUgton

atioD. The God of natare is the God of the storm, the
volcano, the earthquake, as well as of the gentle breeze,
the warm BUnshine and balmy air. Every exhibition of
the destructive forces of nature is but a revelation of
the nature of the God with whom we have to do. If one
would escape the volcaao, he must go beyond the reach
of its destructive power. In general, men must conform
to the laws of nature, for the laws of nature will not con-
form to the caprice of man nor stay their operation to
accommodate men; and this without reference to the
opinions of men. And the laws of nature, if not wholly
projected into the realm of spirit, are counterparts of
the laws that operate in the spirit realm. In neither can
they be violated with impunity. When admonished to
flee from the storm, the earthquake or volcano, men must
find a refuge, or destruction overtakes them. The forces
of Nature are the forces of God, but they do not suspend
their operation if perchance a heedless human being gets
in their way. The Bible represents the same God as
ruling in the unseen universe, and when he says, ' ' Flea
from the wrath to come," they most and may find a
refuge, for in His infinite mercy, He has provided one.
That refuge must not be despised. "For our Qod is ft
consuming fire." Perhaps the most pernicious fallacy
of modem theological thought is that, because God is a
father, men may violate his laws with impunity, that
because He is love, He never will punish sin. But it is
because He is a father, because He is love, that He holds
men amenable to the laws of His spiritual umverse. The
love of the unincamate Father is infinite, for "God so
loved the world that He gave His only b^^itten son that
whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have
everlasting life." Men are saved hy »" credo." " BeUeve
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou sbalt be aavfld."

h.Cooglf

CHAPTER Vin
An Answer to Criticism — Isaiah

THUS far we have considered and quoted the
scriptures of the old and new testaments as
authoritative for instruction. We have as-
Bomed that a book of such unity and in-
tegrity as the Bible, founded as it is upon such in-
tellect-transcending revelations as Genesis I, must natu-
rally be received as authoritative in its own depart-
ment. This would seem to be reasonable especially
when its statements are so nearly allied to ethical
azioms, or are the expressions in words of truths in-
herent in the very nature of things. Until within the
last few years no apology would be needed for so con-
sidering and quoting them. But within the last thirty
years or so, the trend of thought has been toward con-
sidering the Bible as simply a man-made book. What-
ever may be the professions or honest convictions of the
critics, this conclusion seems undeniable, and as a result
we are having forced upon us a man-made Bible, an
egocentric theology, a religion of evolution and salvation
by culture.

This drift of thought is synchronous with and greatly
promoted by a wrong use of modem critical methods.
It is not that a method of investigation by internal evi-
dence is wrong in itself, but its results may be entirely
out of the way when those who apply such methods,
"lean to their own understanding," too much, or ignore
the fact that "Holy men of God spake as thoy were
moved by the Holy Ghost," or professing to "take
nothing for granted" they do take for granted the
131

:.bv Google

132 Oenesi3, Foundation for Science and R^igion

soundness of their own premises and the infallibility of
their own intellectoal processes.

To illustrate some of these points, the opinion prevails
that Moses wrote the book of Deuteronomy. But the last
chapter records the fact and manner of his death, his
i^e, the mourning of Israel, the appointment of Joshua
and an encomium upon Moses. It would seem to be and
ia a legitimate inference that Moses did not write that
chapter, but that it was written by some other person and
at a later date, but it is not a legitimate inference that he
could not have written any of the book or even the whole
of it with the exception of the last chapter. It is very
common for one to write hia autobiography and after his
death, for another to conclude the narrative by append-
ing an account of the writer's death. In this case whether
it is an autobiography or not must be determined by
some other circumstances than that the last chapter con-
tains an account of the writer's death, and so of Deute-
ronomy.

Again, a literary examination of the book of Job shows
it to be a poem, and the identity of style pointo to a
single author. There is nothing irreverent in the sup-
position that an author much more recent than that
patriarch wrote it, but it is not necessary to conclude from
this that it is a mere figment of the imagination. We
believe in the existence of Julius Caesar as an historical
personage although Shakespeare wrote hia poem more
than sixteen centuries after his time. Whether Job was
an historical personage or not must be determined by
some other circumstance than that probably the poem
concerning him was written by another and a later hand.
One of those circumstances is that Christ spoke of him
as a veritable personage. Again, why do we believe that

.tvGooglf

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 133

Moses wrote at least a portion of the PentateucliT Be-
cause it contains internal evidence of that fact in its
express declarations. "And God said unto Mosen, 'write
this for a memorial' " and so on. (Ex. 17.14.) "And
Moses wrote all the words of the Lord and rose up early
in the momii^" and so on. (Ex. 24:4.) "And the
Lord said unto Moses, "Write thou these words" and
BO on. (Ex. 34.27.) "And Moses wrote their goin^ out
according to their joumeya by the commandment of the
Lord," (Num. 33:2.) Here is direct internal evidence
that Moses wrote some portions at least, and that he was
inspired of Ood to do bo.

"Without entering upon a discussion of the merits or
claims of the higher critica with regard to the com-
posite authorship of the Pentateuch, the great historian,
W. H. H. Leckey, gives us a hint that may well be pon-
dered. "I may be pardoned," he says, "for expressing
my belief that this kind of investigation is often pushed
with exaggerated confidence. Plausible conjecture is too
often taken for positive proof. Undue significance is at-
tached to what may be mere casual coincidences and a
minuteness of accuracy is professed in discriminating
between the different elements in a narrative which can-
not be attained by mere internal evidence. In all writ-
ings, especially in an age when criticism was unknown,
there will be repetitions, contradictions, inconsistenciea
and diversities of style, which do not necessarily indicate
different authorship or dates. " Even Leckey then would
be slow to accept the results of a very conservative criti-
cism of the Pentateuch. Much less can we receive the
ractravagant conclusions of radicals.

For first, many of their assumptions are entirely with-
out foundation, e. g., some assume that a prophet of the

.tvGooglf

134 Qenent, Foundation for Science and BeUffion

Lord would never hesitate to do what Qod commanded,
hence the story of Jonah is a myth. No man can know
the f ature, hence any book like the prophecies of Daniel
moBt have been written after the events had transpired.
Thia is the argument of Porphyry against the book of
Daniel fifteen centuries ago. It ia assomed that all
human progress has been steadily, unintermptedly for-
ward, without break or setback, and hence the descrip-
tions of 8 higher civilization in Jewish history must refer
to a late date. It is assumed that a prophet living and
penning his prophecies through sixty years of time could
never have swerved a particle from his original style of
writing, hence the two Isaiahs. It used to be assumed
that the art of writing was unknown in the time of
Moses, and hence he could not have written the boohs
commonly ascribed to him, and that so grand a character
as his is described as being could not have lived in that
age, and hence there was never such a man as Moses. It
is assumed that in speaking through his prophets, God
never uses the prophetic past tense, and hence when he
says of Cyrus, "I have called thee by thy name, thou art
mine," and so on, those words must have been spoken
during the life of that prince and certainly were not
written until afterward. The final great assumption is
that there is nothing but the purely human element
about the writings, nothing of a divine or superhuman
nature in them. This last assumption vitiates absolutely
every conclusion based upon it.

These examples serve to illustrate some of the assump-
tions upon which some of the critics base their conclu-
sions.

To illustrate the fallibility of men in the application
of these metiiods, take a single example aa a tf pe of many,

^cb, Google

Oenetit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 13S

the book of Isaiah. The first concessioii nsnally made to
the critics as being most reasonable is the double author-
ship of that book. As one writer says, ''The different
themes and literary styles, the frequent references to the-
Babylonians, not as distant allies, as in the days of
Isaiah the sou of Amoz, but as the hated oppressors of
the Jews ; the evidence that the prophet's readers are not
exiles far from Judah; the many allusions to the con-
quests of Cyrus — all these leave little doubt that chap-
ters forty to fifty-five were written in the latter part of
the Babylonian or the first part of the Persian period."
This view seems very credible and many perfectly sincere,
earnest and candid Christian people may accept the
premises and conclusions. But an equally candid ex-
amination of internal evidence would show that such
concltisions are not warranted. With reference to theme
and literary style take a passage from the book itself
"The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for
them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the
rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with
joy and singing : the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto
it; the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see
the glory of the Lord and the excellency of our God.
. . . . Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and
the tongue of the dumb shall sing : for in the wilderness
shall waters break out and streams in the desert . ,
. . And an highway shall be there, and a way and it
shall be called, the way of holiness, the unclean shall not
pass over it; but it shall be for those; the way-faring
men though fools shall not err therein. No lion shall be
there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, but
the redeemed shall walk there ; and the ransomed of tha
Lord shall return and come to Zion with songs and evar-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

136 Genesis, FoundaUon for Sderuse and Religion

laating joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and
gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away."
Therefore, ' ' Comfort ye, comfort ye my people aaith your
God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto
her that her warfare is aecomplished, that her iniquity
u pardoned; for she hath received of the Lord's hand
double for all her sins .... Every valley shall be
exalted and every mountain and hill shall be made low ;
and the crooked shall be made straight and the roug^
places plain ; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed
and all flesh shall see it toigether. ' '

Now, in the above extract, where do the theme and
style BO radicallychange that the same man could not have
written the whole of it I Or at what point is there such a
change that it is improhable that the same man wrote
the whole extract t Yet all that precedes the italicized
"therefore" is from the 35th chapter and the balance is
from the 40th chapter. Chapter 36, 37, 38 and 39 are
historical, Isaiah's account of Hezekiah's reign, just as
we should expect; for in II Chronicles 32:32, we read,
"Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness,
behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the pro-
phet, the son of Amoz, and in the book of the kings of
Judah and Israel. ' '

Turning back to "the book of the kings of Judah and
Israel," we find (II Kings, chapters 18, 19 and 20) an
account of Hezekiah, and turning forward to "the vision
of Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, " we find in chap-
ters 36, 37, 38 and 39, an account supplementing both the
preceding accounts of Hezekiah's life. Isaiah was an
historian as well as a prophet, and some of his historical
writings are found before we come to the 35th chapter.

■With reference to Babylon's being referred to "in the

Genesis, Foundation for Science OTid Beiigicn 137

d&ys of Isaiah, the son of Amoz," as a friendly ally, read
chapters thirteen and a part of f onrteen where such a
fearful doom is pronounced upon it. "The burden of
Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see."

With reference to the assumption that the latter part
of the book waa written after the return from the capti'
vity, see chapter 49 :22 et seq. where the promise is that
God will bring his people back from captivity. "Thus
saith the Lord Qod, Behold I will lift up mine hand to the
Qentiles, and set up my standard to the people : and they
shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters
shall be carried upon their shoulders .... Shall
the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive
delivered! But thus saith the Lord, Even the captives
of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the
terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him
that Gontendeth with thee, and I will save thy children."

This certainly looks as if Qod's people were still in
captivity and that God t« the then future was going to
deliver them. Such instances might be multiplied but
these will serve as esamples. With reference to Cyrus,
there has been such a thing as prophecy in the sense of
foretelling future events as well as in the sense of teach-
ing. That fact must be considered later, but here it is
sufficient to say that there is little reason to doubt the
generally received opinion that the prophet wrote in the
prophetic past tense of future events. And that Isaiah
is the author of these words is the more probable from
the fact that he is the undisputed author of most won-
derful predictions concerning Babylon, detailing the
most minute circumstances concerning that city, those
I'redictionB in the first part of the book and those in the

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

1st &9nuia, Foundation for Sdtnc* and SgUgitn

last part fit each other as accurately as the two pieces of
a paper that has been torn apart.

Besides this presumptive evidence, we have what, with
most men, is conclusive evidence upon this point, that of
the inspired writers of the New Testament. Isaiah ia
quoted twenty-one times in the New Testament with his
name attached to the quotation, as Matt. 3:3," This is he
that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias" and so on.
Christ makes one quotation and Matthew, Mark and
Luke (both in his gospel and the Acts) quote from
leaiah and couple his name (in the Greek form) with the
quotation. Also Paul in his epistles. There are twenty-
one such quotations of which ten are from the first thirty-
nine chapters and eleven from the last twenty-seven or
from the assumed pseudo Isaiah. But of this it is said of
course that writers simply reflect the popular opinion
which the critics consider erroneous. But with refer-
ence to this, an incident is suggestive. Luke, at Ii^ast does
not cater to popular impressions when they are not cor-
rect, as in the same chapter in which he speaks of Isaiah,
he corrects a popular misapprehension. In the beginning
of his genealogy of Christ, he says (Luke 3:23), "Jesus
himself began to be about thirty years of age being aa
was supposed the son of Joseph," implying that the sup-
position was not correct, but that God was his father
He here corrects one misapprehension. If the popular
idea about Isaiah had been wrong, he probably would
have corrected that also.

Again, the scriptures from the time of Isaiah to Christ
were so scrupulously guarded that no one could have
joined his own works to those of that prophet even if he
had desired to sink his own personalis after writing
ntch a wonderful production as thcwe last tweuty-aevio

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Beligion 139

chapters. These considerations, among others, make the
probability practically infinite that "Isaiah the wn of
Amoz" was the author of the entire book that bears his
name. If the contentions of the critics fail in this case,
there is little reason for accepting their conclusion! in
other cases.

Accepting such conclusions has a tendency to impair
our faith in the inspired writers of the New Testament

:.bv Google

CHAPTER IX

Another Answer to Criticism — Dani^

THE assumptions oE some of the more radical
critics tliat certain books most have been writ-
ten after the events mentioned in them had
transpired requires a few moments' attention.
In our scriptures there are prophecies that do not par-
take of the nature of Sybilline oracles, prophets who
were not Delphic priests nor any kin to them. As
certainly as certain writings are in existence, so cer-
tainly must they have come into existence before some
of the things written in them transpired. Some years
ago the papers contained notices of a book written to
prove that the entire Bible is a fiction proceeding
from the brains of some monks in the middle ages.
But if the Bible did sot exist before, bow does he ac-
coont for the origin of monastic institutions 1 Few
however even of the radical critics would go to that
extreme. However, starting with the same premises
and reasoning in the same way, their conclusions are
not more reliable though leas ridiculous. The fact is,
as declared by Peter (II Peter 1:21), "Prophecy came
not in old times by the will of man: but holy men of
Qod spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
If there is ai^thing in history, sacred or profane, that
can be relied npon, the statement is true. If there is not,
then certainly the critics themselves have no grounds for
premise or conclnsion. There are hundreds of prophecies
that, evidently, were written from a few days, perhaps,
to hundreds of years before the events transpired, and
140

:.bv Google

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 141

that have been literally, accurately fulfilled, "We take
a single example to illustrate this, and we take it from
Daniel the more readily because he is one whose name
has been taken from the list of prophets by some of the
critics. A young graduate from a certain theological
seminary exclaimed, when reference was made to a
prophecy of Daniel, "Why, Daniel was not a prcphet"
This statement indicates a modem drift of thought.
But let us examine a passage from the book that bears hia
name (Daniel 9:25), "Know therefore and understand
that from the going forth of the commandment to restore
and to build Jerusalem unto the Meaeiah the Prince
shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks."

Here is a clean-cut, positive declaration as to an event
to take place in the future. The time periods are definite.
Each week (Shabua) refers to a period of seven years,
and there is no "day for a year" theory involved in this
consideration. When Daniel refers to a week of days,
he so defines it, as in 10 :2, " In those days, I Daniel was
mourning three full weeks" — "weeks of days" (Shabua
ganmi). The same in the third verse.

It is again to be noted that the prediction is to the
"Messiah." Jesus was not the Anointed One until his
baptism. The preceding verse (24th) also says "to
anoint the Moat Holy, ' ' We are to look then for the end
of the 69 wee^ at the baptism rather than the birth of
Jesus. From the going forth of the commandment and
80 on to the baptism of Jesus was to be 7-|-62=:69 weeks
X 7=483 years. Various starting points have been sug-
gested with various unsatisfactory results, but there ia
one that answers every requirement and absolutely fits
the conditions.

Id Ezra 7 :12-26 we have a decree that forms a veiy

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

lil G«n4tu, Foundation for Scianct and BgUgton

■trikixig landmark; that of Artazerzes written in th«
old Aramaic language and designed to arrest at once the
attention of the reader as being something of unusual
consequence. It may be urged that it was not a "com*
mandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" but that
is very plainly implied. The king himself calls it a "de-
cree" (verse 13). He gives all the exiled Jews permission
to return to Jerusalem and to carry practically Tin-
limited treasures, "And all the silver and gold that
thou canst find in all the province of Babylon with the
free will offerings of the people" and so on. (Ezra
7:16.) See also verse 15, Further than this he says
(verse 21), "I Artaxerxes the king do make a decree to
all the treasurers which are beyond the river that what-
soever Ezra, the priest, the scribe of the law of the God
of heaven, shall require of you it shall be done speedily."
For what purpose were these vast treasures to be used T
One was as expressed, to buy sacrifices and offerings, but
the real purpose is expressed in the eighteenth verse,
' ' And whatsoever shall seem good unto thee and to thy
brethren to do with the rest of the silver and of the gold
that do after the will of your Ood. ' ' That contains the
gist of the whole decree. The temple had been rebuilt.
What should he and his brethren wish to do wiih such
vast treasures if not to repair the city itself, bs well as
the templet According to Dr. Prideaux this is exactly
what Ezra did ' ' with the rest of the money. ' ' The work
also was done in the first 7 Shabua = 49 years mentioned
in the prophecy of Daniel. But that Ezra considered
that he had received a "commandment" similar to the
one mentioned in Daniel 9 is apparent, for in his prayer,
(Ezra 9 :9) he speaks of the favor of the kings of Persia
"to give oa a wall in Judah and Jeruaalwa."

DolizccbyGoOgle

Oen$tis, Foundation for 8cienc4 and BeKgion 113

This decree waa iasaed B. C. 457. Subtracting thia
from the 483 years of Daniel's prophecy, we find Daniel 'a
69 weekfl projecting 26 years into A. D. Bat Christ waa
four years old at the b^inning of A. D. and this added
to 26 makes him exactly 30 years old at the expiration of
Daniel's prophecy, taking the decree in Ezra 7 as the
starting point To sum up, Daniel says that from the
going forth of a certain commaDdment to the Messiah
should be 483 years. In Ezra 7 there is a remarkable
landmark, calculated to arrest the atteutiou of the most
casual reader of the original, — a decree given by the king
of Persia containing (verse 18) carte blanche permission
for him to do whatever they chose with hundreds of
thousands if not millions of dollars.

Taking that as a startii^ point it is exactly 483 years
to the Messiah. After that the Messiah was to be "cut
off but not for himself."

He was "cut off" three and one half years later or aa
stated in verse 27, "in the midst of the week," that is
in the one remaining of the 70 mentioned in verse 24.

"He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,"
having fulfilled all that which they typified.

It may be ui^ed that the sacrifices and oblations did
not cease, but were offered after that. It is true that
the Jews who reject Christ continued to offer tiiem,
but they were not required and the cAurcA did not offer
them.

The minor details of that prophecy all harmonize with
the genera] result.

Of the panorama of future events spread out in vision
before the prophet we have here nothing to do. We only
insist upon the pivotal fact that hundreds of years before
the events transpired he uttered a prediction that vai

I i,z<..t,CoogIf

144 Oenetii, Foundation for Science and Sdigion

fnlMed to tbe letter, snd in the very fear predicted. It
is enough here to show that Daniel was a prophet as Jesus
the Christ called him, that he was one of those "holy
men of Ood" who "spake as th«y were moved by the
Holy Ghost"

It does not help matters any to ascribe a later date to
the book of Daniel than the traditional one for it cer-
tainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem
or the death of Christ If we concede this we may as
well concede the traditional date. But with regard to the
traditional date of the book a very significant incident
is commonly overlooked. When Bawlinaon in 1854 read
the cuneiform inscription concerning Belshazzar, Daniel's
correctness as a historian was established.

But that is only a part of the truth. Why was it that
Herodotus on his visit to Babylon half a century after the
traditional date of Daniel 's book failed to find any men-
tion of Belshazzar! It was probably because the account
recently found buried in Ur of the Chaldees was buried
there before his visit His very ignorance of Belshazzar
is evidence that the account had been written and lost
before his visit

But not inajgting upon this point as essential, the book
was written at least some centuries before the events
prophesied came to pass. This is but one instance of
hundreds. ' ' Prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost"

Fulfilled prophecy is one of the "infallible proofs" of
the divine nature and origin of the "scriptures of truth"
— ^proofs that separate them by an infinite chasm from
the sacred books of the ethnic religions.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER X

Dangers of Egocentric Theology

THE old testament aa a whole is a solid stme-
tnre built upon Qenesis I, its declaration, "In
the b^rinning Ood" and the facts affirmed in
that first chapter. Its history is a record of
Ood 'a dealings with hia chosen people.

The new testament is a solid structure based upon the
old and upon the further fact that "Qod was manifest
in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached
onto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into glory." (I Tim. 3:16.) "Ood hath visited and re-
deemed his people." (Luke 1:68.) "The Word was
with God and the word was God." (John 1:1.) "This
is the true Qod and eternal life." (I John 5:20.) "The
only wise God our Savior. " (Jnde 25.) "Inhimdwel*
leth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Col. 2:9.)
The new testament is a record of the salvation provided
by the incarnate Qod. God himself provided salvation,
"eternal redemption." He has not only provided sal-
vation bnt in the new testament he has left, plainly writ-
ten oat, the directions as to obtaining that salvation. We
have every reason to believe that those records are cor-
rect, and their teachings to be relied upon, and that they
are to be our guide.

With those who reject the Bible in its entirety we have
nothing here to do. Bnt there are those inside of the
nominally Christian chorehes, leaders in, tbcwe churches,
who profess themselves Christians and believers in God's
word, who yet openly teach that there is something
in each individnal that is the final arbiter of ques-
145

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

14C Genetis, Foundation for Beienee and BeUgien

tions of religions belief. Thia is an "Inner liglit" or
"Christian conscioosnesB " which they consider to be
paramoTUQt to the scriptures, and whose teachings are to
be received without reference to, and in spite of, tite
teachings of the srciptures.

W. E. Gbanning has been styled "a prophet of the
Christian consciousness regarding the future. " His posi-
tion was, "whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly
taught in the scriptures we receive without reserve or
exception. ' ' But in recent years leaders in churches not
Unitarian go indefinitely beyond that position and say in
substance, "if you have [a supposed] conscioosneas of a
tnttb, cling to it in spite of anything that the Bible may
or may not say about it. ' '

One writer whom we have in mind has a "Christian
consciousness" that there is a probation after death, and
that there will be enough of such probations in the future
life to make it certain that everybody will be saved. Of
Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Anselm, Edwards and others,
he says, "This is their common colossal defect; that they
make but incidental use of the consciousness of Christ,
(that is the Christian consciousness) in their determina-
tion of theological opinion." But he excuses them in
part, for exegesis was against it, the facts of life and the
common notion that the redemption scheme was confined
to this life were against such a belief. He goes on, "Texts
might be quoted almost without number against a nobler
theology [that is that there is probation after death] and
with the assumption that the day of grace was confined
to this world, and the awful facts of human history were
simply incompatible with an optimistic creed," (of
future probation).

The "optimistic creed" must be sustained at all

D,=,i,z..tv Google

Qtn$tit, F9wii»ti»n for Mdmu «ihI BtKgwn 147

hazards, no matter what becomes of "texts ahnost with-
out Dumber."

But why does be think that all of these thinkers and
teachers have made such a colossal mistake as to suppose
that there was no probation after death or that salvation
was not universal 1 He answers, "These thinkers who
began with an open vision of the highest defer hardly at
all to the creative Christian oonsciooaness. " Because
they did not create their religious systems out of their
own "consciousness" they were all at fault.

And yet that writer may be mistaken in supposing
that those men did not defer to a Christian consciousness,
for they may have had a consciousness of the troths re-
vealed by the scriptures.

The writer above referred to has recorded several of
the creatures of his so-called Christian conscionsncss that
are not in accord with either the facta of nature or the
truths of revelation. We note one or two more. One is
the absolute universalism that his consciousneaj evolves
or creates. He says, ' ' The scheme that contemplates the
salvation of only a part of the human race is the ultimate
blasphemy of thought in which our western civilization
has been in part livii^ for fifteen hundred years."
(Query, how long has our western civilization been in
existence t)

With reference to those schemes of theology that con-
template that some will be lost he says, "Now in the case
of those who believe that the Christian consciousness is
the creative and regulative source of all theology, these
partialistic schemes must be forever abandoned."

"Some will be first and some will be last, one will be
elected to lead and another to follow; but all will be
chosen for service, all for the beatific vision." He ad-

L l,z<..t,C00gIf

148 Oentsit, Foundation for Samc$ and ReUgion

mits that many texts of Beriptnre may be quoted against
this view, but, he says, this fact "need trouble no one."

We may add one more idea from the same writer, that
with reference to the nature of Christ and of men in
general. He says, "According to habits of thought but
recently broken up, God had but one son." But he
affirms, "This opinion ia no longer preachable or cre-
dible among thinking men,"

Of course all of those passages of scripture that refer to
Christ as the "only begotten son" must be swept away
in the interest of his own particular belief. "All men
are sons of God, ' ' and he uses the term ' ' consubstantiated
with Ood." He indeed admits that Paul, James, John
and other scripture writers had this "consciousness" but
the teachings of their "consciousness" must be corrected
by bis own "consciousness," or by that of any one else
who might differ from them.

We have considered a few propositions from a single
writer to illustrate a strong trend of thought at the
present time. A leading Unitarian expressly declared
that the Bible was an orthodox book, and one could get
nothing but orthodoxy out of it if it were taken as it
reads, but his idea was that all of its contents must be
arraigned at the bar of that so-called consciousness, and
must stand or fall by that as judge.

And such ideas are not confined to that denomina-
tion. It is the trend of thought, the drift of opinion of a
large number of the leading teachers and preachers in
the so-called orthodox churches. One of the secrets of
its power is its covert flattery of men. It appeals to the
complacency of men in their own wisdom and goodaeu.
It virtually says to such, "You are learned, you are wise
you are good, you need not bow to any outside authori^

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 149

for inBtmction. Ton are yooraelf able to decide what
is trne and what is not. Stand by your beliefs. ' '

This position is greatly aided by the higher criticiam
by which ahnost any obnoxious teachings of the scrip-
tures may be disr^arded. Even where this is not wholly
the ease it occasions a general relaxation of the strong
grip the Bible teachings formerly held upon the con-
sciences of men.

But the bottom fact in the whole matter of this so-
called consciousness is that it may not be consciousness
at all but merely a belief so strong as not to be dis-
tinguishable from Gonsciotisness. And yet that belief
may not be correct. One cannot have a conscioosneas
that there is a planet as large as Jupiter revolving around
the sun in an orbit between the orbits of Earth and Mara.
It is not a fact. One cannot have a consciousness that the
son, moon and stars revolve around the earth as the
center of the solar system. It is not a fact, though for
ages men had a conviction so strong that it could not be
separated from consciousness that it was the case.

The Moslem world holds its religions convictions with
an absoluteness that cannot be distinguished from con-
sciousness and yet those convictions may not be correct.
Any number of instances might be given where beliefs
have been held so strongly as not to be distinguished
from consciousness and yet have been proven to be false.

The whole force of this teaching about a Christian
consciousness is directed to the establishing of an egocen-
tric theology. The individual himself is considered to be
the only infallible element in his beliefs. It is not an
infallible church, an infalUble pope, nor iin infallible
Bible, but an infallible ego that is to be the final arbiter
of truth in matters pertainii^; to religion. The infallible

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

ISO Geneait, Foundation for Science and Beligion

ego ifl the center of belief, the creator of its own theolo-
gical system. Bat there are as many objective facts in
theol(^7 as in astronomy.

These facts cannot be removed by the wish of man nor
by the opinions of men. It is dangerous to assume that
they can be. They are false teachers who teach that they
can be. They are unsafe leaders who lead men to think
that each man is a law unto himself. But there is some-
thing outside of one's self that assumes to be a guide.
It is a book that opens with a wonderful vision of how
the worlds were formed. That narrative as the record
of actual facts has been confirmed by all of the advanees
in astronomy for the last one hundred years, and the
discoveries 'of the last few years have as nearly proven
the account to be correct as any thing not the subject of
mathematical demonstration can be proven. But a
mathematical calculation of probabilities as to the truth
of both would bring those probabilities so near infinity
aa to be undistingoishable, practically, from it. To-
gether, they form a wonderful voucher for the book that
is founded upon the first chapter of Genesis. The records
of geology absolutely confirm the records in those chap-
ters. The discoveries of archaeol<^y, since that science
was bom, confirm the accuracy of the book in general.

In hundreds of instances some casual utterance is
found to be the declaration of an eternal principle in
nature that could hardly have been discovered by cen-
turies of unaided human study. These are wonderful
vouchers for the truthfulness of the book.

Further, besides tiie first chapter of Genesis, hundreds
of prophecies, uttered from a few days to hundreds of
years before their fulfillment confirm the divine origin of
the book. It is a revelation of human nature and we can

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 151

Iiardly know ourselTes without connilting its pages.
These eirciim8tance8 should prove the book. Ihe mer-
chant does not have to prove every individual item
charged in his accounts. He may prove a reasonable
number, and all items must be admitted unless there ia
plain proof to the contrary in each case. The conten-
tion here is that these circumstances connected inth the
Bible should prove the books so that a candid m&D may
rely upon their teachings even though he may not be
able to comprehend them. Any other course is like sub-
jecting the magnetic needle to his own feelings. One
may have a compass that in hundreds of instances has
been correct. Its needle points to the magnetic pole.
But if the owner were lost in a forest he might feel that
the compass was not correct. Some disturbing influence
must be at work, he might think. The needle says that
one direction is north but be is conscious that another
direction is north. But if he goes by that "conscious-
ness" or acts in accordance with some "inner light," he
may find to his sorrow that the compass was right and
that he was wrong.

This illustrates our relations with the Bible. We may
feel that in some instances it must be wrong. S'^ill it is
not safe to assume that it is. It should be taken as it
reads, simply remembering, that, like other literature, it
is adapted to the wants, the needs of men. It deals in
poetry, parables,, figures of speech and so on. But these
are easily enough, as a general thing, distinguished by the
candid mind. They but adapt it the more perfectly to
free moral agents, throwing them back upon their own
candor and sincerity, demanding a right attitude of will,
requiring an earnest desire to find the truth that they
may live by it. That is why the Author of the Bible has

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

152 Oeneais, PoundatioH for Science and BeUgion

allowed difficulties to appear. They are valuable for de-
veloping virtnous character in moral agents.

But the parables are readily seen to be parables, figures
of speech are seen to be such, and their meaning is
generally apparent; though sometimes that which seems
to be an extravagant figure of speech may, after all, but
express a truth too recondite for us to readily under-
stand.

As an example take the Savior's words to those who
have followed him "in the regeneration," "Eveiy one
that hath forsaken houses or brethren or sisters or father
or mother or wife or children or lands for my name's
sake shall receive an hundred fold and shall inherit ever-
lasting life." (Mat 19:29.) Consider first relation-
ships. He elsewhere says, ' ' Whosoever shall do the wilt
of my father which is in heaven, the same is my brother
and sister and mother." (Mat. 12:50.) In this regard
he is speaking to those who have "followed him in the
regeneration," who have been "bom of the spirit." He
is speaking to those, "as many as received him to them
gave he power to become the sons of Qod, even to those
that believe on his name ; which were bom not of blood
nor of the will of the fiesh nor of the will of man but of
God." He says to his disciples, "All ye are brethren."
They were, in the true sense of being the children of one
father, God. It is no perversion, either, to call the elder-
ly women, who have been bom again, mothers in the
ehorch.

We magnify fleshly relationships; Christ magnifies
spiritual relationships. With regard to possessions, the
true Christian can possess "all things" even though he
cannot and does not wish to exclude every one else from

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Otnnit, Foundation for Sdene^ and RtUgion 153

their possessioii. This is "my coontry" though I cannot
push every one else out of it.

Whether or not I have been happy in choosing an
illustrative example, it is true that seeming figures of
speech may correctly express truth too recondite for us
to perceive, or which men would not readily accept if
they did perceive them.

There is poetry, too, in the Bible that indicates that
poetic license has been taken, but not to an extent to be

But there is enough plain, straightforward teaching
that cannot honestly be evaded. When the booh says
that it shall not be well with the wicked it m not safe to
assume that it will be well with the wicked. There is
an amiable complacency abroad that fails to take into
account the heinousness of sin against Qod. But Qod
will judge men according to his own view of sin, and it
may not be the amiable one that some men take. When
the book says, "These shall go away into everlasting
punishment," (Mat. 25:46.) it is not safe to assume
that all shall go into life eternal. It may have been
Jesus who spoke those fearful words, and they may be
true. When the scriptures in niunberleas instances speak
of the Devil as if he were a veritable personage, it is not
safe to teach that there is no such being. It may be that
fliere is, and that he has gained a great point in con-
Tincing religious teachers that there is not. When tiie
King is represented as saying to some, "Depart from me
ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil
ftnd his angels," (Mat. 25:11.) it is not safe to assume
that those words were never spoken or if spoken, were
not true. They may have been spoken, they may be true
and have a fe^ul signiflcance.

:.bv Google

164 0»nnis, F»imdatitn for Btimf mud RtUgwn

When Christ is represented as saying to certain reli-
gions teachers, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lustsof your father ye will do," (John8:44) it is not safe
to tesch that every man is a son of God and that all they
need is t» become conscious of the fact.

When a man ceases to be a child of the devil and really
becomes a son of Qod he may become conscious of the
fact, for, ' ' He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself, (I John 5:10.) "For as many as are
led by the Spirit of Gted they are the sons of God, " (Rom.
8:14) and "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirits that we are the children of God." (Rom. 8:16.)
But this witness is given only to those who believe on the
Son and by believing on him have received the "power
to become the sons of God. ' ' When one becomes a child
of Qod he may become conscious of the fact and not be-
fore.

It is urged, however, that all such passages must be
interpreted in the light of the parable of the prodigal
son. That parable has been very much overworked in
the interest of universal salvation. It, indeed, indicates
the attitude of the Father toward a retoming son. But
it indicates not only the attitude of the father but also
that of the son. This is overlooked by universalists. The
attitude of the son is, "I will arise and go to my father
and will say auto him. Father, I have sinned against
heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be
called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants."
(Luke 15:18,19.) There are some who evidently do not
take that attitude. Christ says, "No man cometh to the
Father but by me." (John 14:6.) One of his saddest
wails is, "Ye will not come to me that ye might have
life." (John 5:40.) God will not say one thing by hia

:.bv Google

Otnesis, Foundation for Sdtnee and BeUffion 155

Son and tiie inspired apostles, and a contradictoiy thing
to the consciouauess — BO-ealled— of any man of to-day.

Of the same nature is the idea of an "inner light."
It may be right, it may not be. If it reveals onrselTes to
ourselves in the same way that the Bible does we may be
sure that it is correct. One thing that the experience of
the centuries has confirmed is the statement, ' ' Thy word
18 a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Ps.
119;105.) But we have a strong hint that one may im-
agine that he has an "inner light" that is not light, for
Jesus says, "If the light that is in you be darkness how
great is that darkneire." (Mat 6:23.)

Some of the moat monstrous departures from the
Christian faith and practice have been occasioned by a
supposed "inner light " The reason for this the apostle
Paul makes clear, "And no marvel; for Satan himself
is transformed into an angel of light." (II Cor. 11:14.)

It is not safe for a captain to remain in his cabin and
steer his vessel by the light in that little room and dis-
regard the lights that are in the heavens.

The Bible professes to reveal a knowledge of things
which the imaided human intellect could never ascertain,
such as a knowledge of God, of hia nature, a future life,
and the way of salvation. lu thousands of instances
where men have found ont truths they have confirmed the
teachings of the seriptures. Men are appealed to as
authorities apon sabjeets which thc^ are supposed to
nnderstand. The Bible should be respected as an author-
ity upon the subjects of which it treats. At least it is
safer than human imaginings. In matters pertaining to
Gkid and bis relations to men the Bible is an authority
for instructiott. In its preaence an egocentric theolt^y
cannot stand.

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

CHAPTER XI

Tke Bible Am An Authority to Be Obeyed

IN namberless iostancea the commands and precepts
of the Bible are found to be bat a revelation to
men of eternal principles that inhere in the very
nature of things, to which men must conform their
lives in order to be in harmony with the universe or to get
any good out of it. They are given in the same spirit
with which a parent would command a child not to eat
poisonous berries, the nature of which the child could
not understand. Men are not so wise as many of them
think that they are. They need guidance more than
many of them think that they do. They cannot rely as
safely upon their own judgment as many of them think
that they can. There are principles in the universe
which the Maker of the worlds and the Maker of men
knows better than men have as yet been able to know
them. The path of obedience is the only path of safety.
The first sin on earth was unbelief, the second was dis-
obedience. Men must learn that there is a wisdom supe-
rior to their own, that there is a power superior to them-
selves, that there are laws which they must obey. ' ' Hath
the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacri-
fices, as in obeying the voice of the LordT" (I Samuel
15:22.) With reference to those occult principles of
nature which some commandments require us to observe,
we may mention one or two as examples which do not
seem at least to be very well understood. One of these
is the law of the S&hbath. "Remember the Sabbath day
to keep it holy. ' ' Is that the expression of a principle
of nature that for our own wellbeing must be observed 1
156

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oenetis, Foundation for Science and BeUjion 157

All the other commandments in the decslogue are clearly
seen to be. Is this a solitary exception t It is in good
company. They all come from the same source. He that
said, "Thou shalt not Mil," said also, "Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy." There is evidence that it
waa made for men and when man was made. At least
there is evidence that it was observed centuries before
the time of Moses. It is said that a Chaldean account
of creation has been discovered which confirms the state-
ment that the Sabbath is coeval with creation. Other
tablets have been found that ^ve an account of the Sab-
bath which were written in a lai^uage that became ex-
tinct two hundred years before the time of Moses. It
seems as if there must be some reason for it that the
superficial observer does not see. God expressed His
estimate of the day by commanding a man to be put to
death who had willfully violated it .All admit that it is
of use as a day of rest for the body, but even in this
respect the value of a conscience-bound day of rest ia not
fully appreciated. One can rest when his conscience for-
bids him to work as he could not were the time not so
bound.

Utilitarian ai^nuaents along this Une are urged for its
observance. They are good as far as they go and per-
haps they are the only ones that can be used to secure
legislation for Sabbath observance, but there are other
considerations for those who wish to develop their
spiritual natures, and after all these are of supreme im-
portance. Even steel tools require an occasional season
of real But if our bodies were so made as never to need
a moment's rest, the law of the Sabbath would still be
as necessary for our spiritual natures as it is now. Seen
from one stand point, it would seem to be even more

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

156 Genuu, Foundation for 8ciene« and BeUgton

oeceesaiy. A clock with the moat perfect machineir,
the most perfectly oiled, and with heavier weights would
the more need a p«ndalum to keep it from running too
fast. So the Sabbath has its moral use in stemming for
a time the onnuhing spirit of worldliness that is finally
80 destmctiTe of happineaa

We need a day when free from the work and worry
of life we can hold communion with the Father of our
spirits. Even if our bodies never needed rest, our
spiritual natures would need stated seasons of refresh-
ing.

Men need the law also as a test of faith and obedience.
As before noted, the first sin was unbelief, the second dis-
obedience. The same test is still proposed to all; "Will
you believe God's word and obey, or will you disbelieve
and disobey!" It is a test of loyalty to One who is
infinitely oar superior. It is also a test of fealty. Will
you be true to your sovereign Lordt

But perhaps one of its most important uses is that it
places a check on the spirit of avarice that so often
makes riches a curse. The law of tithes acts in the same
-way, and one does not have to look very far into the
nature of thii^ to see the divine wisdom in that law.
It is not that riches are a curse to their possessors or to
others when held with a right spirit When Ood made
the animal frame he planned that some organs, as heart,
lungs, kidneys and other organs, ^otUd receive inde-
finitely more blood than many other organs, and that
. too was for the good of the whole system. In organized
society it may be as essential that some persons have
vastly more of the circulating mediom than others in
order to carry on those vast enterprises that are for the
best interests of the whole people. And it doea not follow

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

Genstit, Foundation for' Science and StUgion 159

that the ones who have the most wealth are the most
avaricious or greedy. Abraham was not more avaricious
than Lot though he had greater possessions. EUsba was
not more avaricious than his slave Oehazi.

Many men have been given great abilities to acquire
and to invest wealth in railroads, telegraphs, pipe lines,
ocean cables, manufacturing establishments, and so on,
that are an inestimable blessing to society in general.
But whether this wealth is a blessing to its possessors or
not depends upon the spirit of loyalty to Him who gave
them the power to get wealth and whose stewards they
are.

Misquotations of scripture are common, snoh as
"Money is the root of all evil." Money is the drcolat-
iug medium, the blood of society without which or-
ganized society could not exist upon any extended scale.
"The love of money is the root of all eviL" That is
another misquotation. The love of money is a divinely
implanted instinct to serve as a stimulus to that exertion
that is necessary for man's well being. It is only when
one is driven by it to transgress the supreme law of
benevolence, to violate the fundamental law of love to
Qod and our neighbor that it becomes a curse. Then it
becomes that " covetousness which is idolatry." That is
the teaching of Paul to Timothy, "Which while coveted
after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced th^n-
selves through with many sorrows." (I Tim. 6:10.)

It is only when the instinct causes one to transgress the
"First and great commandment" and the other that
"is like unto it" that it bocomes an eviL Now if in the
acquiring of wealth one woiild faithfully observe the law
of the Sabbath as an expression of love and fealty to God,
give a reasonable proportion of his income as an ex-

^cb, Google

160 OtHttit, Foundation for 8eimct and BeUgio*

prefiaion of his love for Ood and his feUow-man, it ii
as plain aa an axiom that richee would never be a cune
to their owner.

That, then, which seems to the superficial thinker to be
a mere arbitrary dictum of a anperior power becomes the
divine prescription for happiness with wealth. There
may be many other instances of the same nature.

Bat without waiting to <jnestion the nature of a com-
mand or precept, men should obey. No man is fit to
command who has not first learned to ob^. The first
principle of obedience is obedience to Ood. The Bible
is His word. It is an authority to be ob^ed. It is the
voice of superior wisdom, of superior authority. Even
Christ will be obeyed. "If ye love me keep my com-
mandmenta," is his declaration.

:.bv Google

CHAPTBE Xa

The Reasonaltleness of the Ckriatian's Faith

THIS Teceiving the scriptures as an authority
to be obeyed involves faith in them. Is this a
reasonable attitude f Is faith in general reason-
able t Is the Christian iaith as a system reason-
ablet A mistaken notion prevails that would answer
these questions in the negative. "Faith and reason are
contradictory terms, ' ' once declared a very intelligent
man to the writer. But if that be tme, there is no reason
used in society today, for all of oar activities are based
upon faith. Civilized society is built upon faith. If that
foundation should give way not only would organized
society disappear but death and destruction would hold
camivaL No banking house could survive a failure of
faith in it. Few commercial houses could survive even a
limited failure of public eonfldeuee in them. If all
faith on the part of the people should fail, governments
even could not ezist. Are people, then, all of the time
violating the dictates of reason f No. When conditions
warrant faith it is not reasonable to withold it. It is
reasonable for a man to have faith in a wife who has
throii^h loi^ years been true to him. A lack of faith
would indicate a culpable spirit of jealou^. It is
reasonable to trust friends who have always been true to
OB. Even when there is so much crime committed as
there is at present, it is Dot reasonable to entertain a
pessimistic lack of faith in men. These propositions need
only to be stated to be received. If confidence in men is
reasonable, confidence in Qod is equally so.
Said the aged martyr Polycarp, "Eighty and six yean
181

:.bv Google

162 Gtffwm, Foundation for Science and SeUffton

hayfl I B«rved him and he faoa oever done me an;' harm. "
With equal troth he could have aaid, "He haa never de-
ceived me." Milliona of men and women in all agea
have found that "The steps of faith fall on the seeming
void but find the rock beneath." The ChriBtian'a faith
is not a blind, unreasoning credulity, at least it need not
be. At the outset the reqiiired faith need only be a
right attitude of the will with reference to the truth or
to what may be truth. This attitude is what the apostle
refers to in Hebrews 11:6. "Without faith it is impos-
sible to please him: for he that cometh to Gk>d must
believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him, " Human experience has shown that
the required faith need not be very strong — only just
enough to apply the required test, and a faint faith may
be changed to positive knowledge for it is written, ' ' And
ye shall seek me and find me when ye shall search for me
with all yonr heart. " ( Jer. 29 :13.)

That is a reasonable requirement. Further than that,
owing to the fact that man is a free agent, it is a neces-
sary requirement. It is no more reasonable to dispute
the existence of Ood without applying that test than it
was for people in Qalileo 'a time to dispute the existence
of Jupiter's moons while refusing to look throi^h the
telescope to find out the truth.

The existence of a personal God is the fundamental
proposition in the Christian religion. It is reasonable
to believe in him. Admitting this, every objection to
miracles falls to the ground. The universe itself is proof
of the most stupendous miracle. A short time ago as
Qod counts time, where the solar system now is there was
nothing. But Qod by the fiat of his power and wisdom
caused the worlds to spring into beii^. That was a stu-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Ggnaii, Foundation far Science and Religion 163

peodoQS miracle. Admitting that, no miracle is incre-
dible where a moral exigoncy requires one. The resur-
rection of Jesus the Christ from the dead was one of
those exhibitions of divine power where a great moral
exigency — the salvation of men — required it It is
reasonable to believe it upon the authority of witnesses
whose testimony has come down to us. Other miracles
are equally credible when we admit the fundamental fact
to which the whole creation t^tifies, "In the beginning
God."

There are mysteries in religion as there are in every
thing around ua. We cannot take more than a step or
two in any direction in the physical sciences before we
are plunged into mysteries that we cannot solve. Men
quarrel with the doctrine of the trinity of God, but
readily admit the trinal entity of man which is just at
mysterious, just as intellect-transcending. If we admit
tiie latter fact upon the authority of men who have
studied men, it is reasonable to accept the trinity of
God upon the evident teachings of God himself.

Some of the scripture teachings that seem mysterious
are greatly if not positively confirmed by the facts of
our everyday lives, as those concerning a future life
We need not cite passages, they are so common. But we
need not depend entirely upon them for they are not the
only evidence. They should be received as evidence, but
they are greatly strengthened by the experiences of our
everyday lives. Men have not made enough of common
sense arguments in this matter. They stand uncertain,
doubting, fearing or hoping that the scripture teaching
is true, while the teachings are confirmed by facts. In
answer to the question, "If a man die shall he live
again t" we may answer confidently, "yes." When

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

IM OfiMid, foundation for Soitnc* Md Sttiffion

the protomaiiTr Stephen was about to die, it is stated
that he ' ' looked steadfastly into heaves and saw the glory
of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of Qod."
The martyr himself exclaimed, "Behold I see the heavens
opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God." (Acts 7:55,56.)

We do not have to go back to apostolic times for inci-
dents like that. We have them in our own day in num-
berless cases that make more credible the story in the
Acts, and that confirm our own faith in the future life.
The companion of my own earlier life, a little while be-
fore she passed into the unseen, with a radiant smile
upon her face said, "I see my dear Jesus." Jesus said
before he went away, "I will come again and receive you
unto myself, that where I am there ye may be also." It
is reasonable to believe that he kept his promise.

Only a few months since one dear to the writer as life
itself was about to pass into the unseen, when her pain-
racked features lighted up, and she exclaimed, "Beauti-
ful, so beautiful." "What is so beautiful t" was asked.
"All heaven," was the reply, Stephen saw the heavens
opened and so have many in more recent times.

Some years ago the writer had three little sisters pass
away by that terrible scourge, diphtheria. The first one
to go was Alice, the youngest, who was five years old.
The night before she died she said, ' ' I want to go up, I
want to go up and sing with the angels." Viola, aged
eight years, was the next to be called. She died looking
up and talking to Alice. Elsie, aged twelve years, went
next. A little while before she passed away she said,
' ' I have seen Alice and Viola. They are dressed in white
and have crowns on their heads. They are coming to
meet me and Alice has a crown for me. The river is

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

GenestBf Foundation for Sdenee and B^iffion 165

cold but I shall Boon be tbere. The Savior beckons to me
with bia band to come. "

Surely, ' ' Out of the mouth of babes and suckling hast
thou perfected praise."

Another incident. A cousin of the writer was near-
ing the end of her earthly life. She spoke of seeing
friends who had gone before and among them her father
and mother and one whom she did not know. She
described a boy who was at once recognized by the older
sisters as a brother who had died when she was too
young to remember him.

Such incidents might be multiplied indefinitely. The
few related above are some that have come so near us as
to be almost a part of our own personal experience. A
missionary writing from China speaks of the triumphant
death of a convert — a man — who had such visions of the
unseen world. He (the missionary) said that such ex-
periences were very common and the danger was that
if one should pass away without such visions his friends
m^ht doubt the genuineness of his conversion.

What shall we say of these things f Are they the
illusions of those whose faculties have been weakened by
approaching dissolution f That cannot be. Stephen had
his vision of heaven before the first stone was thrown,
and he was stoned to death partly because he had such a
vision and told of it. My companion had her vision of
Jesus the day before she went to him, and all of the time
before and after she was as rational as she ever was.

It is hardly reasonable to try to account for the other
experiences on the illusion theory. The learned may
smile and skeptics may doubt, but the most rational ex-
planation is the one on the face of them, that is, they are
facts. $ome who are passing to the unseen are permitted

:.bv Google

166 Genais, Foundation for Science and BeHgion

to see a little that is before them for their own euconrage-
ment, and to tell what they see for the comfort of those
who are left behind, and also to strengthen their faith
in the scripture teachings coneeraing the future life.
Skepticism regarding sach incidents is not wisdom. But
there is truth in what the Duke of Argyll says in a
paraphrase of a sentence from Bacon, "From the on-
loeking of the gates of sense and the kindling of a greater
natural light, incredulity and intellectual night have
arisen in our minds. " It is wiser to accept facts of what-
ever nature and from whatever source they may come
and pray with Bacon, "This also we humbly beseech
thee that human things may not prejudice such as are
Divine, neither that from the unlocking of the gates of
sense, and the kindling of a greater natural light, any-
thing of incredulity or intellectual night may arise in
our minds toward Divine mysteries. ' '*

'Bacon, quoted by the Duke of Ai^'U "» Reign of
Law, Chapter I, p. 3, foot note.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER XIII
Individual Attitude

IT is a commou BuppoBition tliat a person who ac-
cepts the Bible as aa authority for instruction,
together with such cofroborative evidences aa the
above, is necessarily of a credulous nature, and
ready to accept without question anything that is
presented. This is not the case. In general, the wisest
philosophers, the most profound students of science, the
greatest men generally have been the firmest believers in
God and his revelation to men.

With reference to himself, the writer may be par-
doned here for speaking in the first person in defining
his own attitude for the double purpose of refuting the
common opinion referred to above and of giving a brief
narrative of personal experience. A few pages concern-
ing my own life may not be out of place, especially when
they are written from a sense of obligation and in the
spirit of Paul, who, when about to introduce personal
matters wrote to the Corinthians, "Would to God ye
conid bear with me a little in my folly, and indeed bear
with me." (II Cor. 11:1.)

Probably no skeptic was ever more opposed to receiv-
ing religious truth upon the authority of others than I
have always been with reference to everything that is
presented for acceptance as truth. No sentinel on duty
was ever more strict in challenging an approaching
stranger than I have always been in scrutinizing every-
thing presented for me to believe. I confidently believe
that I never took a statement that could properly be
questioned, from teacher, preacher, lecturer or author
167

:.bv Google

168 Qeneait, Foundation for Science and Beligion

Hpon mere authority. Even text books which I iwed in
school and college were never exempt from scrutii^. Such
expressions would occur as "the hot air rises and the
cold air rushes in to fill the vacuum that would otherwise
occur. ' ' No, I could not bat say to myself, ' ' that is not
correct." If I were to pat a piece of iron into a vessel
and then ponr in mercury the iron would not rise of its
own accord and the mercury rush in to fill a vacuum.
The iron would be forced up by the heavier mercury. No
more does the hot air rise of its own accord. It is forced
up by the heavier cold air. Sound was likened to waves
on the surface of water. No, it is the transmission of
unequal densities through a medium rather than wave-
lets upon the top of one. In physical geography the
saltness of the oceans was accounted for by the rivers
constantly emptying into them. It is admitted that there
is not much salt in fresh water streams, but, it is con-
tended, there is a little, enot^;h to salt the ocean in time.
But a moment's mental calculation shows that there is
enough salt in the oceans to cover the whole land surface
of the earth hundreds of feet deep. Why suppose that
it was once all piled up on the land 1

Upon reading a statement a short time ago that from
the top of a certain mountain a party could see a place
250 miles away, the question instantly arose, Would the
curvature of the earth allow one to see that distance f
Again a moment's mental calculation showed it to be
impossible, and that the 250 miles must refer to the cir-
cuitous paths they would have to traverse in order to
reach the place mentioned.

These instances but illustrate an habitual attitude of
mind from my earliest boyhood.

While yet a boy I heard the principal of so academy

DolizccbyGoOgle

Gtnuit, Foundation for Sei»ne» and StUgion 169

ask a class that was reciting to him, ' 'What would be the
motion of a body fallii^ through the earth t" Some said
one thing and some another, but the teacher finally closed
the discussion by saying, "It would stop at the center,"
I thought to myself. No, there is nothing to stop it there,
and after a few moments' thought I sawthat it would go
on through to the other side of the earth and continue
to vibrate in accordance with the law of pendulum vibra-
tion. It was fully 35 years before I knew that any one
else had conceived the idea. At the time I saw it as if
by intuition though I afterward demonstrated it.

It is in accorditnce with that principle that I afterward
reasoned that the interior even of the sun may be cold
and solid and that the interior of the earth and other
planets may be the same.

When the theory of the correlation and conservation
of forces and of the mechanical equivalent of heat was
first brought to my notice I rejected it, but, as usual, I
investigated it. I calculated the effect of a certain
amount of heat acting through different substances. The
result seemed to sustain my first opinion, for the visible
effect was only from one-half to one-thirtieth of the pro-
ducing cause. At least, if my calculations were correct,
from twenty-nine thirtieths to one-half of the force was
exhausted in overeomii^ the cohesion of gasee (Tyndall)
or in some way it was tangled up with the intermoleenlar
forces.

When the effect of the tides in retarding the earth's
axial rotation was first suggested, it received the usual
ehallei^, but a little thought convinced me that the idea
was correct, and I at once used it, to account for the rate
of the moon's axial rotation. Of course its present rate
may have been its initial rate of rotation. But whether

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

170 0*»4iit, Ftmndatitn for Sei*no« and Itelation

its rate were faster or slower, if there had been any con-
siderable body of water on it its present rate would haT^l
been produced by its tides.

In 1872 the nebular hypothesis was brought forcibly to
my attention, and it received a peremptory challenge. I
suggested to n^ teacher in mathematics that I believed
that I could prove mathematically that it was impossible
for a nebulous mass so to contract as to produce the
planets with their present motions. But sitting down one
evening to the task I found the opposite to be the case,
but concluded that contraction must have been exceed-
ingly rapid. (See above.) That was the beginning of my
study of cosmogony, and I may state that every principle
in the preceding section upon this subject was an original
discovery, though many of them have been since con-
firmed by the authority of others.

So also when the theory of organic evolution came up
for consideration it natnraUy and necessarily was sub-
jected to the same scrutiny, and with the results recorded
in the preceding pages.

Again I state that these things are mentioned simply
to show my habitual or rather natural attitude toward
everything that is presoited for my acceptance. I am
not easily overawed by the reputation of any man, and
have long had the habit of investigating for myself state-
ments made even by specialists in their own departments.

It was owing to this irresistible tendency to investigate
that I demonstrated Kepler's Third Law in my own way
and the effect of ellipticity of planetary orbits upon the
operation of that law.

It is hardly necessary to say that with such a constitu-
tional make-np, rel^on would not be accepted with an
unreasonable creduli^. For some years I was a skeptio

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

Oentsit, Foundation for Sderice and Religion 171

Not that skepticism was the outcome of lo^eal processes,
but Buch a mind as I have described is the soil in which
skepticism, like a fungous growth, naturally flourishes.

When in a seaaon of religious awakening a friend
spoke to me upon the subject of personal religion, my
reply was to the efFect that the phenomena of religious
experience were in accordance with natural laws. That
is, the laws of mind acting in conjunction with certain
influences from without could produce such phenomena.
Given a certain temperament or mental constitution that
could respond to the appeals of supposed truth such
phenomena were possible. Bat I supposed that my own
mental make-up was not of that kind, and that however
much I might desire it, I could never undergo snch ex-

Even then (two years before entering college) I could
see far enough over into the domain of "The Reign of
Law in the Spiritual World" to know what the Dnke of
Ai^U referred to. when he wrote, "I had intended to
conclude [his book. The Reign of Law] with a chapter
on Law in Christian Theology. • • • • Por the
present however I have shrunk from entering upon qaes-
tions so profound, of such critical import, and so in-
Mparably connected with rel^oua controversy."

Again, I make this statement to show that it was not
Erom mere credulity that I accepted Christ as a personal
Savior. I found that there are two ways out of skepti-
cism. One is by the study of the evidences of Christian-
ity. This course, if one has the mental power to com-
prehend them, will remove intellectual doubt.

The other way which is quicker and more satisfactory,
b(>cauBe more life-giving, is simply to take the right atti-
tude of will, or, in popular language, to open the heart

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

172 Qenent, Foundation for Science and Religion

to receive Qod, and He will come in and bring all the
evidences any one can need. That was my own w^. It
was satisfactory. It not only removed donbt, it pro-
daced certainty as to some vital things. There are cer-
tainties in the religion of Christ.

I advise young Christians to reach as many of these
certainties as possible and as soon as possible. We may
know as well as believe. The object of this little volume
is to help reach some of these certainties.

:.bv Google

CHAPTEK XIV

An Individual Experience of Ood Present and Chttding

FOR many years before I was converted, I bad a
strong conviction that if I ever became a Chris-
tian I should have to be a minister of the gospel.
This was occasioned by an elder sister's telling
me, while I was bnt a child, that it bad been revealed to
her that I was to be minister. My whole being revolted at
the idea. When a little older I wanted to study law,
and while a private soldier in the civil war I carried
around with me, in my knapsack, the two large leather-
bound volumes of Blackstone's commentaries to read as
[ had opportunity. When I accepted Jesus the Christ
as Savior I accepted him also as Lord. I mnat do his
will and work. I tried however to shake off the old im-
pression, and to believe that I could serve my Master
and stiU pursue my own inclinationfi as to my life's
work. It was a question that must be settled with greater
certainty than by a mere impression, however strong.
There were a number of other questions closely allied to
this fundamental one that most be settled, so that in
after life there would never be any vacillating or halt-
ing. I wanted to be guided with absolute certainty to
the right course. The secret of Ood 'a guidance has
always been a secret between HimaeU and me. "The
secret of the Lord is with them that fear him. ' ' Friends
sometimes have secrets between themselves that it would
be a violation of confidence to tell to any one else. This
was a secret that I always felt that it would be sacrilege
to reveal. It may have been owing in part to constitu-
tional reticence, but I am sure that it was owing more
17S

D,a,l,zc.bvG60gIe

174 Genetii, Foundation for Sdwee and Beligion

to the fear that others wonld not regard its sacred char-
acter as I regarded it. Very few, I felt, would tinre-
servedly believe it, and incredulity on the part of others
would be revolting to me. In a few instances in the past
it has seemed that I might make some revelation of it for
the benefit of others, bnt the impulse, "It's a secret that
must not be revealed, ' ' has alwajra restrained me. It has
been only very recently that I have felt relieved of that
restraint, and a conviction that I ought to speak of it as
proof that Qod is near, has taken its place. Hardly a veil
intervenes between Him and us. He is ready and willing
\o guide his children when they seek bis guidance.

But first I may speak of the experience of another as
really a part of my own, for it was that which first
determined my own course. A gentleman, the oiie before
referred to as the one who spoke to me about being a
Christian, narrated to me an experience of his.

There was no injunction of secrecy, but I have never
mentioned it to any one. His wife had died and left him
with a family of little children. He had no one to help
him in bringing up those little ones. He felt that he
must have a companion, and a suitable one, and so re-
solved to leave the matter to the Lord.

He wrote the names, on separate slips of paper, of all
of the ladies of his acquaintance who were eligible, pat
them in a receptacle and waa about to draw when he re-
membered one whom he had met but once or twice and
who lived in a distecnt part of the stata He added her
name, and prayed most earnestly that God would guide
his band. He drew, and drew the name of the one last
mentioned. He replaced it in the receptacle and prayed
again that if she were the one ehoaen for him, be might
draw the same name a secoad time. He drew, and the

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

&enesis, FouTidation for Science and Seligion 175

second time drew the same name. Again he replaced the
name in the receptacle, shook them ap thoroughly aa be-
fore, drew, and for the third time drew the same name.
All doubt waa now removed. He made . the journey,
visited her in her father 's home, and, as he was certain
that he would do, took her home with him his wife.

This incident gave me faith to let the Lord determine
my future course by directing the lot. ' ' The lot is cast
into the lap ; but the whole disposing thereof is of the
Lord." (Prov. 16:38.)

Of the disciples it is said, "They prayed and east
lots. ' ' Some may think that they thus left the decision
to chance. No, it was leaving it to the Lord. If one in-
tended thus to leave it to chance, chance would decide
the matter. But if one is Spirit-moved to leave it to God
in that way, Qod will decide. At least that proved to
be my experience.

One of the first questions submitted was, Shall I go on
studying lawt The answer, three times in succession,
was, no. Another question was. Most I preach the gos-
pel T After the most earnest prayer for guidance and for
Qod's forbearance, after the first throw of the die, the
answer three times in succession was, yes. I may say
tiiiat in no case could the answer be accepted until the
die, after the most earnest prayer before every cast, had
made the same answer three times in succession. The
question. Shall I take a course of study f was similarly
answered in the afSrmative three times in succession.

Shall I go to school t Again the answer, three times

in succession, was yes. In all, some twenty questions,
involving some sixty throws of the die, were thus
answered without confusion or contradiction.
And not only were the moat important question!

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

178 Oenem, Foundation for Science and Religion

settled in that way but some whieli to the general reader,
would seem of amall consequence.

I was teaching a school one winter, which, by the
public road, was about fourteen miles from home, but by
going a part of the way by logging roada, across fields
and forests, and croaaing the river on the ice, I could
reach it by nine miles' travel. I went home quite fre-
quently and always by the shorter route, starting Friday
after school. One Friday afternoon was clear and warm.
The snow was melting and the slush was deep, making
the walking vei^ difficult. If the weather continued
warm my overcoat would be only a burdeiL Should I
take itt The lot, as usual three times in succession,
answered, yes. I took it Friday evening was warm and
pleasant. Saturday was like a balmy spring day. Sun-
day forenoon was just as warm. I began to question with
myself whether I had not been misguided for once. The
weather speedily answered. It suddenly turned most
bitterly cold with a biting wind. We lived in the country
and it would have been difficult if not impossible to have
height or borrowed a coat. If i had not taken my own
I should have suffered even ^ I oould have endured that
nine mile walk.

I may say that never have I had an instant 's doubt as
to the wisdom, the benevolence of every answer so re-
ceived. Although in many cases it cost a terrible stru^le
to obey, the years have shown that the decisions were
directed by a wisdom infinite^ greater than my own.

One of the strange things connected with the matter is
that no answer was satisfactory to me until the die had
given the same answer three times in succession. I never
did, I never could, abide by the decision of the first or
second throw. But when the third answer confirmed the

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and ReUffion 177

first and second, the decision was absolute. Bat why
three times t I will not try to say with certainty, but
one thing is certain. The first answer might ha^e been
attributed to chance. It would not be impossible for a
second answer to come in the same way. But it would
be unreasonable to attribute a third answer to chance.

God never seemed to reprove me for lack of faith in
not accepting his first or second answer as finaL He
was willing and wished to prove beyond a peradventure
that it was Himself and not chance that was guldu^ me.
Of this he gave reasonable proof and he asks nothing
unreasonable of aaiy one. He was willing to answer
three times. He probably expected me to ask three times.
"In the month of two or three witnesses every word shall
be established."

With reference to his expecting one to ask three times,
an incident from India is suggestive. Very much
abridged it is as follows :

In one of his long missionary journeys the Rev. Jacob
Chamberlain, with a party of about fifty men, foond
himself in a most dangerous position. They were travel-
ing parallel with the Godavery river and about a mile ■
from it, through a jungle infested wiUi man-eatii^ tigers
and the still worse malaria that might prove fatal with a
single night's exposure. They had expected to reach
high ground beyond an affluent of the river, bat owing to
high water they could not reach it. He silently prayed
for deliverance. The answer came in a kind of inward
voice, "Turn to the left and go to the Godavery." Ho
rode to the front and questioned the gnides, but found
that there was no village, no house, no boat, not even a
piece of high ground where they could safely pitch their
tents in that direction. He fell to the rear and again

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

178 Oenent, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

sought help from God. Again the answer eame, "Tnm
to the left and go to the river. " Again he consulted the
guides with the same result The third time he prayed,
as life depended upon it, and the third time he received
the same answer in the same way. This time all donbt
vanished and he ordered his men at once to torn to the
left and cat their way to the river. But Uiere was no
need to out their way, for just then they struck an old
path that led directly to the river. Here they found a
large flat boat, large enough for their tent and the whole
company. On this they spent the night in safety, and
on it pursued their journey the nest day. Bat the point
is that it was after the third answer that they struck the
only path leading to the river.

Some of the world's wise ones may smile with incre-
dulity, but, "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of
the wise and will bring to nothing the understanding of
the prudent." (I Cor. 1:19.) Our Savior prays, "I
thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, becaose
thou bast hid these things from the wise and prudent
and hast revealed them unto babes. " (Mat. 11:25.) "If
thonscomest, thou alone must bear it." (Prov. 9:12.)

The questioa may arise as to whether any and every
one can be guided in the same way as I have mentioned
in my own experience. Probably not, bat still I believe
that the guidance may be in accordance with the measure
of faith. Bat faith in a particular direction may be an
especial gift for a specific end. The twelfth chapter of
First Corinthians is suggeetive along that line. "For
to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge by the aune Spirit; to
another faith by the same Spirit," and so on. (See
4-11.) "Are all apostles t Are all teachers T Are all

L ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

Otnetii, foundation for Science and Religion 179

workers of miracles t Have all the gifts of healing I Do
all speak with tongues f Do all interpret t" "No," is the
implied answer. But as the apostle before said (see verse
11), "But all these worketh that one and the self same
Spirit, dividing to every vasai severally as he will. ' ' It
is not always as the individual may choose, but as &e
Spirit wills. But I believe that many more might have
guidance in the same way if they were earnest enough
to know God's will, that they might do it. As in some
other cases, doing is necessary to knowing. For guidiinee
in that particular way the obedience must be implicit, un-
compromising, absolute. But in one way or another
one may be eonscious of the Spirit of God as present and
guiding. With me that particular manner of goidiuiee
was pursued but for a short time. After those vital ques-
tions were settled beyond the possibility of a doubt and,
too, after such lessons as to God 's presence and guidance,
I was thrown more upon my own responsibility to use
my own judgment in matters of duty. Still there has
never been lacking an assurance of Divine guidance
when needed and asked for.

A growing conviction of duty in some particular regard
is often, perhaps always, a call of Qod. One may have at
first a kind of vague suggestion as to some possible duly,
not strong enough of itself to form a positive conviction.
But when that is repeated with increasing force, month
after month, perhaps year after year, the call may be-
come imperative. My own experience, again, may be
si^gestive to others. Months, perhai>s a year or so,
before preparing my little book, "Jesus Only," I had a
slight impression that I ought to prepare a book with
tiiat title. "With the passing months the conviction be-
came stronger until it became so strong that I felt that

:.bv Google

180 Oenesii, Foundation for Science a-nd Religion

it muBt be obeyed. I felt tired, worn out, and greatly
desired a change of pastorate for relief. I had not come
to a positive conclusion concerning the book, but one
evening, on my way to my room, I halted for a moment
in the doorway and mentally promised God that if he
would give me another field I would write such a book.
No audible voice could have been heard more plainly or
have produced a stronger impression than the reply in
my conscioTtsness, "Why not write it before yon movet"
My own answer was instantaneous, "Lord I will." I
finally redeemed my promiae and a few months after its
publication the book itself caused me U> receive a call to
a field that in my physical condition at that time was
ideaL

Sometimes I have had a feeling of rebellion, think-
ing that other people have talents that are of value,
while I have only the one little talent of a certain power
of abstract thought, and I have been tempted to say, ' ' I
will ttot use it." But while at work at something else
the impression would come as strong as any audible voice
could have made it, "Burying your one little talent."
Again it would be, "Despising your birthright." And
in that manner I have been urged to take up and con-
tinue the work. I believe that such promptings have
come from God, My former experiences of His directing
me lead me the more positively to that conclusion.

But there is another way in which God speaks to us
and that is through his printed word. Here, again, it is
my conviction that many Christians do not secure all
the privileges that are at their disposal. How many,
many times when I have wanted courage or hope, com-
fort or inspiration, I have opened my Bible at random
and have found just what I have needed. Indeed, when

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion 181

really in need, the word has never failed me. Sometimes
the re<MiUection of a passage of scripture has served the
same purpose.

Once, years ago, when in trouble and with some
anxiety as to financial matters the passage came to me,
"Trust in the Lord and do good, so shalt thou dwell
in the land and verily thou shalt be fed." (Ps. 37:3.)
It was like the voice of God addressed to me individually.
It became my life motto and ever since then my chief
concern has been to do the work that He would have me
do and leave the result^i with Him. At least that has
been the attitude of the will, my purpose which has
prevailed in the profounder depths of life, though, in
spite of this, the surface is often sadly ruffled.

When feeling wronged there is an instinctive desire for
revenge. But the passage, "Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, saith the Lord," (Rom. 12:19.) will cheek that
desire, and place in its stead the prayer, ' ' Lord, this con-
cerns Thee more than it does me, take the matter into
Thine own hands, but temper justice with mercy." The
result is a calm, settled peace with reference to the mat-
ter, which is vastly more conducive to happiness than
cherishing a purpose to seek revei^e would be.

The voice of Ood comes to us in remembering or read-
ing the written word of God, the Bible. An incident to
illustrate the latter.

On one occasion I had been reading Dr. Behrends'
book, "The Old Testament Under Fire." I was myself
a little disturbed in mind as to the outcome of recent
criticism and was about to retire for the night I had
gone about half way up stairs when a strong inward im-
pulse came, "Go back and read a passage of scripture."
I was about to disregard it and go on, but it came again,

:.bv Google

182 0»nesi$, Foundation for Science and ReUgion

"Go back and read a paaaage of Bcripture." I returned
asking niTself what message there was for me. Opening '
my Bible at random my eyes fell apon the twelfth
Psalm. I read the first few verses and thoaght that there
was nothing in particular there, but in the 6th and 7th
Terses I read, "The words of the Lord are pure worda:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, Lord, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation forever. ' '

There was my message. The words were a revelation
and an assurance. Why, I thought, it was no new thing,
even in David's time for the word of Gk>d to be under
fire, to be tried as in a furnace of earth. And, by the
way, there may be a good deal of the earthly element now
in the trying of the word of God.

But the assurance that sustained the Psalmist is en-
couraging stilL "Thou shalt keep them, Lord, thou
shall preserve them from this generation forever."

These are a few instances of a great many in which the
printed word has been not only a guide but a source of
encouragement, of hope and instruction. The word of
Gh)d in its simplicity, as it reads, is an authority for in-
struction. It is more, it is life giving. I am assured by
my own experience that it is not dogmatism to say that
the Bible is God's word. And my experience is not
imiqne. It is the testimony of the experience of multi-
tudes in all ages and climes. The Bible not only contains
God's word, mixed up with a mass of verbiage of human
authority, leaving to each reader the responsibility of
picking out God's part, but as a whole it is God's mes-
sage to men.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER XV
The New Life From Qod

IN a preceding chapter (VII) we touched incident-
ally, and only in connection with another sub-
ject, upon the nature of that life which those
posseaa who by accepting Christ have received
subjective salvation. But this subject deserves a more
extended consideration than was there incidentally given
it.

Jesus says, (John, 10:10) "I am come that they might
Lave life and that they might have it more abundantly."
In these words He defines His mission to the world.
With reference to the human race, everythii^ else in His
life, death and resurrection was subordinated to one end,
contributory to the one purpose of giving life to those
whom He called His sheep. And it is sttrprising, when
we come to consider it, bow much He has to say about
life, and of Himself as the giver of life — how much He
has to say about eternal life, everlasting life and of Him-
self as the one who bestows it. But He was not moving
among dead bodies, He was not talking to dead bodies
So the natural life, of course was not meant. It is ap-
parent also that He did not refer to a mere continuance
of existence after the spirit of man had left the body.
This continuance is admitted by him and he taught it
In one sentence he speaks of a future Efe for both the
righteous and the wicked, "These shall go away into
everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life
eternal" Daniel says that they shall "awake, some to
everUuting life and some to shame and everlasting con-
183

:.bv Google

184 Oenetit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

tempt. " Paul also speaks of the resurrection of the jiut
and of the unjust.

The immortality of the spirit of man, hoth of the
wicked and the good was admitted in Christ's time, and
bag been a fundamental doctrine of the Chriatian church
during all of the ages of its existence. What, then, does
he mean when he says, " I am eome that they might have
lifet" The fact seems to be this: there is a kind of life
that is different in kind from the common mortal or im-
mortal life of maa It is different in kind, end not simply
in degree or duration. All men have an immortal spirit
and that without regard to character. But the life that
Chriat speaks of is as different from that, as the im-
mortal life of man differs from animal or as animal,
differs from vegetable life. The facts seem to be that
when man was created he waa endued, not only with an
immortal spirit, but with a life principle that partook of
the Divine nature. He was made in Qod's image, in His
likeness. When man sinned that life was extinguished.
And here is a suggestion as to the effect of that sin. It
extinguished the divine life, and no created beii^ can
beget in his offspring a different kind of life from that
which he, himself, possesses. After man had lost that
divine life he could not beget it in his offspring. So it is
9 literal truth that "in Adam all died." Not one of his
race could have by inheritance that true, that divine
life that allied him to God. I£ he or any of bis descend-
ants were to have that life it must be created in him
anew. So "if any man be in Christ he is a new crea-
ture." He has a new life created within him.

To restate the proposition. When man was created
Ibere was a life principle within him that was termed by
Christ eternal life or everlasting life. It was a life prin-

:.bv Google

Genesis, foundation for Science and Religion 185

ciple entirely diatinet from hia Gommon human life. It
partook of the divine and allied him to the Diyine anthor
of life. It was of a kind that would produce Qodlike
living, develop a Godlike character. It was of this
kind of life that the death sentence was pronounced upon
disobedience. Ood said to Adam, "In the day that thou
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." But Satan said,
"Thou shalt not surely die." Which was right t That
depends upon what we mean by the term death. The
separation of the life principle from the tree is death
to the tree because it lb the extinction of its life. The
separation of the life principle from the animal is death
for the same reason, there is an extinction of life. The
reparation of the immortal spirit from the man is called
death, but only by way of accommodation. There is no
extinction of a life principle. That goes on living in-
dependently of the body. If this separation were the
death spoken of, then Satan was right, for that separa-
tion did not take place until about 900 years afterward.
But if the extinction of the divine life principle were
referred to then God was right. The life principle that
allied Adam to God, that would develop Godlike char-
acter, Godlike living, became extinct and that was death
in an infinitely more important sense than the mere sepa-
ration of the spirit from the body. That the divine life
had gone out was shown by the conduct of our first
parents after they had sinned. Instead of loving God
and His companionship as before, they feared, hated,
shunned Him. They were dead as to the divine life.

That declaration, "in the day thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die, ' ' with its fearful realization, helps us to
understand his meaning in other places. But before con-
sidering these, note that the first sin was unbelief and the

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

136 Oenesis, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

result of that waa diBobedieaoe. Man lost the divine life
by unbelief and disobedience, he can regain it only b;
reversing the process, by believing and ob^ing.

Now with this view of Bpiritual death and eternal life,
observe the light it casts upon certain passages of scrip-
ture and how these same passagea tend to confirm the
view itself. "I am come that they might have life."
It was not necessary for Christ to impart a life that they
already had. He must have meant something entirely
different from the natural life. He refers to eternal life
es He elsewhere says, "I give unto my sheep eternal
life." "The gift of Qod is eternal life." Or, changing
the order for clearness, "Eternal life is the gift of God."
(Rom. 6:23.) It is a new impartii^ of a life principle.
Note again, ' ' she that liveth to pleasure is dead while she
liveth." (I Tim. 5:6.) Again, "To be camally minded
is death." (Rom. 8:6.) Then hast a name to live but
art dead." (Bev. 3:1.) There is nothing figurative,
mystical or mysterious about these words. They bat ex-
press a literal truth, for, so far as the divine life is con-
cerned, those classes are dead. They are dead as Adam
was dead as concerns the divine life after his transgres-
sion.

"You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses
and sins." (Eph. 2:1.) The word "quickened" means
the bringing to life, the giving or imparting of life. All
were dead as concerned the divine life that Adam lost by
sin. Paul again says, speaking of Qod who is rich in
mercy, "even when we were dead in sins hath he quick-
ened" or given life to. (Eph. 2:5.) He uses the same
words in his letter to the Colossians. Again he says,
"If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." And
again, ' ' For in Christ Jesos neither cireumciflion availeth

:.bv Google

Oene$i$. Foundation for Science and SeUgion 187

anythiii{|> nor tmeircumcision but a new creature." In
these passages he can refer to but one thing, and that is
the new, the different kind of life that is created withia
those who believe on Christ.

How is this new life obtained! We have just spoken
of it as the gift of Ood. But Christ also gives it. John
says it was by Christ that God made the worlds. It is
also through Him that this life is imparted. Jesus Him-
self says, "for as the Father raiseth up the dead and
quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom he
will." (John 5:21.) Paul says, "the first man Adam
was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quick-
ening spirit, ' ' or one that imparts life. Christ tells what
kind of life, "I give my sheep eternal life." John says
of him, "as many as received him to them gave he the
power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name: who were bom, not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of
God." (John 1:12,13.) John again speaks of that life
or of its nature, "Whosoever is bom of God doth not
commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him and he cannot
Bin, because he is bom of God. " (I John 3 :9. ) A divine
nature is in those who are born of God, which they have
inherited from their Father.

That is the significaace of the new birth. It is the
beginning of a new life, a different kind of life from that
which they had before. It partakes of the divine and
allies one to the Divine. It is thus, as Peter says, that we
are "partakers of the Divine nature."

Observe, too, what Christ himself says of this life and
of Himself as the author o£ it. He says to Nieodemiis,
"Ye must be bom again," and note that this was spoken
^ a rabbi, a member of the sanhedrin, a religious teacher,

:.bv Google

188 Gmssit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

a theologiaa. He had knowledge, influence, position and
theology, but all of these availed nothing without the new,
the divine life the beginning of which is termed a new
birth. But that life must come by believing in Jesus.
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of G^ abideth on him." Again be says, "He
that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me,
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemna-
tion: but is passed from Death unto life." "He that
oelieveth on me hath everlasting life, " " I am the resur-
lection and the life." "Whosoever liveth and believeth
in me shall never die. " In all of these passages of what
can he be speaking but of that spiritual life that b^ns
with the new birth and makes us the children of God T
And, incidentally, note the infinite majesty of one who
can use such words and make them good. Note that
every promise of this life is conditioned upon belief in
Himself. As before observed, every promise of salvation
is coupled with belief in him.

And this leads us to consider what we must believe
concerning him. The answer is found in his own words
and in the facts of history. Jesus says to the Pharisees
and those gathered with them, "If ye believe not that I
am He," that is, the Messiah, "ye shall die in your sins."
But of the Messiah it was written, "His name shall be
called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty Ck>d, the Ever-
lasting Father, the Prince of Peace." If they did not
believe in him aa such, they did not believe in him as the
Messiah. But they did not believe that he was such, and
crucified him because he claimed to be the Messiah. Th^
accused him of blasphemy for "making himself equal
with Ood," as he claimed to be, while tiiey believed him

Doiizccb, Google

Genetit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion 189

to be a mere man. Read the history of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the subsequent dispersion of the Jews tcx
evidence as to whether they were saved in this world or
not. None of those who believed on him as the Christ
were involved in that terrible destruction, for believing
in him and admitting his claims, they believed his words
eoncemii^ the coming of that destruction and fled to a
place of safety. And this destruction was, evidently, not
of a mere temporal nature, for Jesus told them, "Whither
I go ye cannot come." And note his denunciations of
those classes. Yet they believed that there was such a
man as Jesus, they believed that he was the son of Joseph
as some now believe in his merely human paternity.
Many could not do otherwise than believe that he was a
good man, and the only bad thing any of them could find
about him was that "he deceiveth the people" in trying
to convince them that he was the Messiah. They believed
that he wroi^ht miracles also. We read that after the
raising of Lasarus, "Then gathered the chief priests and
Pharisees a council, and said, ' ' What do we ! for this man
doeth many miracles. If we let him alone all men will
believe on him." (John 11:47,48.) Instead of being
convinced by the raising of Lazarus that Jeena was what
he claimed to be, they "consulted that they might put
Iiazarus also to death: because that by reason of him
many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus."
(John 12 :10,1I.) None of them, so far as we know, ever
denied the fact of his miracles nor even of the resurrec-
tion of Christ, but, with reference to this last, they did
all that they could to keep a knowledge of the fact from
reaching others, for when the Roman guard reported the
facts, "they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying
' ' Say ye, his disciples came by night and stole him aw^

I ,i,z<,.f,GoogIf

190 Genesii, Foundation for Science and Religion

while we slept, and if this come to the governor's ears,
we will persuade him and secure you. " (Mat. 28 :12,13.}
Yes, they most decidedly believed in miracles. They were
also compelled to admit that others, aJao, wrought them
through faith in the name of Christ. When the man
lame from his birth waa healed by Peter and John, and
the knowledge of that fact was rapidly spreading and
winning adherents to the oanse of the apostles, these
same priests, scribes and Pharisees, the religions teachers,
"conferred among themselves, saying. What shall we do
to these ment for that indeed a notable miracle hath been
done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in
Jerusalem : and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no
farther among the people let us straitly threaten them
that they speak henceforth to no man in this name."
They believed many things concerning Christ, but evi-
dently their belief waa not a saving faith nor a belief
that would insure eternal life.

Not only did men, wicked men, believe many things
concerning him but demons also did the same. We read,
"There met him two possessed with devils coming ont of
the tombs, exceeding fierce so that no man might pass
that way. And, behold, they cried oat saying, What have
we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of QodT" The faith
of the demons went farther than that of many men, bnt
they did not yield a willing obedience to him as their own
Lord. James says (2:19), Thou believest there is one
God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble. ' '
Many, now, believe that there is one God, but claim that
Jesus Christ is in no sense that God.

What, then, is necessary T When Jesus asked his
disciples who he was, Peter answered, "Thou art the
Christ, the son of the living God." Thomas exclaimed

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Q»neii$, Foundation for Science and BaUgion 191

"My Lord and my God. " The true nature of Christ wai
revealed to them. "Blewied ari; thou, Simon Bar-jona:
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it mito thee bnt my
Father which ii in heaven," was onr Savior's declara-
tion.

That is the faith that complies with the condition, "Aa
many as received him to them gave he power to become
the sons of Qod, even to them that believe on his name."

Simon Peter is not the only one to whom the Father
makes this revelation. He mahes it to every one who will
volontarily take the right attitade of will concerning
him. And this revelation can come in no other way for,
"No man can say that Jesns is Hiord but by the Holy
Ghost" And this explains why ao many now arc like
the scribes, Pharisees and others of old. They do not
submit to the teaching of the Holy Spirit as to the nature
of Jesus. He is Divine. He is Lord with a capital L.
He can impart the spiritual life, and does impart it to
all who receive him and believe in him as the Messiah as
that Messiah was described in the prophecy. To such he
imparts the divine life, the life that allies men to God and
makes them partakers of the Divine nature. They thus
become the children of God because they are bom of
God. They are the children of God in an entirely differ-
ent sense than that used so often of lato with reference
to all persons.

We hear a great deal about the fatherhood of God and
the brotheriiood of man. There is a great truth contained
in that expression inasmuch aa that all should treat God
as one should treat a father and should recognize the
claims of their fellow men upon them. But this rather
fictitious relationship is by no means to be confounded
frith that inflqitely b^her relatioasbip that exista

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

192 Genesis, Foundation for Science and Religion

between the Father and those who have been "born
again," "bom of the Spirit," "bom from above," "bom
of God," and bj that birth have become the children of
Ood. To BQch Qod ia a father because He has imparted
to them life, an entirely different kind of life, from that
which they posBessed before.

Those who have been bora of Qod, too, have an entirely
different relationship with each other from that of
homanity in general

In this connection it should be emphasized, as has been
before stated, that this life is a new creation. "If any
man be in Christ he is a new creature. ' ' This life is not
a derelopment of some other and lower hind of life. A
new bind of life has been created within him, or im-
parted to him direct.

When vegetable life appeared upon our planet it was
the result of the creation of that kind of life. That life
has produced, perpetuated that kind of life and only
Qiat kind of Ufe, namely, vegetable life. When animal
life appeared, it was the result of the creation of animal
life. Vegetable life did not beget animal life, it only
begat its own kind of life, and not only in general but in
particular.

Algae life did not beget oak nor cedar nor poplar life
It begat algae life and has continued to do so since the
first dawn of life upon the planet. In the realm of animal
life, the Eozon life did not beget trilobite, nor ammonite
nor ganoid life. It begat and perpetuated its own kind
of life and has begotten that kind only, since the first
trace of animal life appeared on earth.

The same law prevails in the spiritual world. "Natural
law in the Spiritual World" prevails. Science as well
as religion taaohea thia tmUt. Aa Prof. Drununond well

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Clenesis, Foundation for Sdenee and BeUgion 193

a&jB, "No organic change, no modification of environ'
ment, no mental energy, no moral effort, no evolution of
eliaraeter, no progress of civilization can endow any
single hmnan soul witii tlie attribute of spiritual life.
The Spiritual world is guarded from the world next
beneath it by a law of Biogenesis — 'except a man be
bom again • • • • except a man be bom of water
and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of Gktd.' "

Again the same writer observes, "there is no Spon-
taneous Generation in religion any more than in nature.
Christ is the source of life in the Spiritual World, and
"He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not
the Son," whatever else he may have, "hath not Ufe."
Again he says, "It is clear that a remarkable harmony
exists here between the Organic World as arranged by
Science and the Spiritual World as arranged by Scrip-
ture. We find one great law guarding the thresholds
of both worlds, securing that entrance from a lower
sphere shall only take place by a distinct regenerating
act, and that emanating from the world next in order
above it.

There are not two laws of Biogenesis, one for the
natural, the other for the Spiritual. One law is for
both."

The spiritual kingdom is as distinct from the animal
kingdom as that ia from the vegetable, or as the vegetable
is fnmi the mineral kingdom. Each has its beginning in
a new creation. The Christian is one in whom this new
kind of life has been created, and the Christian religion
is a ^Btem of religion based upon that fact.

There is another remarkable harmoi^, also, between
these two worlds. Note that as in the material world so
in the apiritoal the development of life is according to

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

194 OfftMMt, Fowndtttion for Sdmos and BtHgioii

its life principle. In tue material oniTene every living
thing follows that law. There are today billions of
protoplasmic cells so nearly alike that, as science tells ns,
no microscopic examination, no chemical tests can detect
any difference between them, and yet one developing ac-
cording to its life principle in a few das^s will become a
blade of grass, another may require thousands of years
to mature into a giant Sequoia.

In the animal kingdom, one may at matnri^ become
an oyster, another an elephant. Each developes in ac
eordance with the life principle that animates it

So when the spirit of man becomes possessed of that
life principle that is called by oar Hiord "Eternal life,"
that life that comes when one is "bom of Ood," the
spirit will develop according to that life principle, but
it will not come to its maturity in a day nor in a month
nor a year. It may require the "eternal years" for its
maturi^ into Godlikeness. Those who so thoughtlessly
mticise the imperfections of Christians fail to recognize
this fact. But even in this life the character may nurture
BofBciently to bear "Fruit onto holiness."

"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffer-
ing, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance."
(GaL 5:22.)

These qualities are not the result of heathen culture, for
the fruits of such culture are the direct opposite of these.
But the difference between those who have this life and
those who do not have it is not so marked in those lands,
as Europe and America, in which the genius of Ghris-
tiani^ has shed its blessings upon all; like the sun that
risee upon the evil and the good, or the rain that descends
equally upon the just and upon the unjiut. The differ-

U.,r,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

Omuii, Foundation for Sdance and Beligion 195

eoce is more marked in those regions where Christ and his
gospel are nnknonu.

When, hy receiving Jesus the Christ as the Son of
God, an African has received this new life from God,
he is changed from a oroel, blood-thirsty monster in
human shape into a man, homble, teachable and yet
virile, sitting at the feet of his missionary teacher stup-
ing the life of his Master. Throogh faith in Jesns as
the Meeaiah, savages, miserable creatures who through
fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,
have received this life and by its animatii^ principle
have nnheaitatingly laid down their lives for the faith,
that they m^ht be the means of imparting the same
life to others. There is not a spot on earth, and never
has been a spot, so dark, so eavage, so steeped in heathen-
ism that it has not been counted a joy for some of Christ 'a
children to make it their home and their grave, if need
be, if by that means they might advance the cause of
their Kedeemer. Such conduct is the outgoing of the
life within which has been imparted to them by Him
who laid down His life for na. It ia evidence that
the life that inspires them is the offspring of Qod and
that they ar6, indeed, the children of Qod.

Nations are aggregates of individuals. What the indi-
vidnals are the nation is. As a nation becomes infused
with the divine element in the lives of its truly Christian
citizens, the evils resulting from selfishness and sin
gradually slough off; and so we have the enlightened
nations of today as compared with the barbarism that
once prevailed. Vice and crime indeed abound, but they
prevail in individual lives that have not been touched by
the Divine life. These vices and crimes are hideous and
in many instances surpass those of darker lands because

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

196 Ogiu»i$. Foundation for 8eune« and Religion

tbose wlio commit them mn against greater light and are
reeistiiig atronger influences for good than have ever
before exiated. But in spite of this the infiaence of lives
that have been touched by the Divine life has trans-
formed the world of Caesar into the world of tod^, and
is working tranafomiatioDS more rapidly now than ever
before in the history of the hnman raee.

The kind of life that the caterpiller has causes it in
time to slough off its hairy oater covering and all of
those oi^ians ihat pertain only to its lower form of life
and take on new forms more beaatifol and better adapted
to higher external conditioiis. So the nations have been
sloughing off those hideous excrescences of human life,
gladiatorial shows, suttee, infanticide, slavetr, human
sacrifices, cannibalism, feudal wars, massacres of pri-
Bonera taken in war, mitigating the horrors of war and
soon.

Christiam^ builds hospitals for the sick, almshouses
for the poor, supplies the destitute, pities the unfortu-
nate, relieves the distressed.

It dianges laws and remodels governments and is doii^
this now with greater rapidity than ever before. We need
only to point to the islands of the seas, to Japan, to
Chins, to Persia, to Turkey.

But these results in the physical world only illustrate
that power which finds its more perfect sphere of activity
in the realm of the spirit where it is not limited by time
or space or any other limitation of material conditiona.

It is the life of God in man and that unites him Ut God
by the ties of a spiritual consanguinity.

Christ came to impart that Uf e.

:.bv Google

CHAPTER XVI

Concluding Wordi

FOR a nniDber of years a conflict has been going
on in the Christian world over matters pertaio-
ing to religion. Heretofore the lin«8 have not
been sharply drawn so that the contending hosts
were fairly drawn up on opposite sides with the issoes
distinctly outlined between them. Bat this seems to be no
longer the case, particularly with the leaders of the oon-
tendii^ forces. There are hosts of people between the
two extremes of thought and hardly knowing which way
to turn. On one side there is a man-made Bible, a reli-
gion of evolution, an egocentric theology, and salvation
by culture. On the other side is a God-inspired Bible
that is authoritative for uistruotion and conduct, a
Christo-centrie theology, a religion that is based solidly
upon the atonement of Christ and salvation by the credo,
"1 believe on the Lord Jesus Christ": in other words sal-
vation by faith as the power by which we appropriate to
ourselves the new, the divine, the eternal life that He
has to give us. This latter is the religious system that
conquered the world in the first Christian century. Thers
is no hope for its conquest in the twentieth except by the
same gospel, which is the only gospel of Christ.

Men ask what shall be the preaching for an age of
doubt I The answer would be, the preaching that admits
□o doubt about the eternal verities of the Christian faith.
There must be no evasions of the truth that men are dead
in sin, and can be made alive only by the power of the
One who raised up Christ from the dead.
What shall be the preaching for the twentieth cen-
197

:.bv Google

198 Oenesit, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

turyl The preaching that conquered the world in the
first. It only can meet the facta in the world that are as
hard now as they were then. It ia, of coarse, not to be
inferred that discretion is not to be used in presenting
the truth. There are many phases of the true gospel,
many truths in the one great truth. The phase of tmth
presented must be adapted to the people appealed to.
Paul says, "Knowing, therefore, the terror of tiie Lord
we persuade men." But he could also say, "I have not
shimned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. ' '

What shall be the preaching in view of the intel-
lectual activity of the age! The preaching of the same
truths, coupled perhaps with intellectuality enough to
grasp the great facts recorded in the first chapter of
Qenesis, and enough to see that those chapters are the
records of facts. If not the record of facts, the biblical
cosmogony is, at least, in harmony with all the advances
in astronomical science for the last hundred years. Its
bic^enesis absolutely corresponds with the records in the
rocks. We need no theories of neo-creationism. The old
creationism meets all of the conditions.

Archaeology, so far as it touches the Bible, confirms
its historicity. The Jewish race is a monument to that
historicity. The Bible as it is, without human emenda-
tions or corrections, is a record of facts not only in cos-
mogony and biogenesis but of facts in human experience,
and of eternal principles that determine that experience.

It has been said that "so long as the majority of theo-
logians treat the Bible as a book of oracles, so long will
it appear as a book of fables to the majority of the
educated laity." Whether this is true or not depends
npon the amount and kind of education "the educated
laity" have, and the spirit with which that education

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oenens, Foundation for Science and Religion 199

was pnrsQed. A most deplorable feature of the present
time ia l^e spirit of eznltant joy, the perfect satisfaction,
the supreme complacency that we know so much, rather
than of bomility that we know so little. Bat the highest
reaches of human intellect as yet have been but as a
balloon journey toward the stars.

There may be a bind of education that would lead men
to despise the oracles of God, but in doing so it places
humftn conceit above Divine wisdom. The Bible, to a
great extent, gives an account of its own origin, and the
ages have substantiated that aceomit. The martyr
Stephen called the Mosaic law, at least, the oracles of
God delivered to Moses. Paul, Peter, the writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews an^ others of the inspired writers
refer to the books of the Bible as the oracles of God. The
old prophets spoke of the oracles of Qod and subsequent
events have proven their words to have been such. So
long as men substitute their own imaginings for the
truths of God, so long will they confuse the oracles of
God with those of Delphi or some other heathen shrine.
They do not belong in that category. Paul could say in
his time, ' ' We preach Christ crucified, imt« the Jews a
stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to
them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
power of God and the wisdom of God. " (I Cor. 1 :23,24. )

There are, essentially, the same classes now. The in-
telligent layman need not despise those oracles. The in-
telligent preacher need not and does not stultify himself
in preaching the same facts that Paul preached, the
facta of a personal Qod, a God creating, a God revealing
himself in the scriptures of truth, a God redeemii^, a
God present and gnidii^;. and a new life created in those
who believe on the lArd Jesus Christ The stultifying

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

200 OtMtii, Foundation for Seitnct and B*Ugion

ia on the part of tbose in the chturch, who, like wolves in
sheep's clothing, are covertly and insidioofily subvert-
ing the truths they are paid to advocate. The call to-day
ia the call of Momi at Sinai, of Elijah at Mount Carmel.

:.bv Google

Notea to Chapter I

(a) Thia rapid contraction would necessarily pro-
duce a spiral nebula. For a discussion of this subject
and for the proof of several pontiona I have taken in
this article, see Prof. Moulton's article, Svolution of the
Solar STstem, in the Attrophysical Journal for October,
1905.

(b) With reference to these nebular densities note the
following from the' Ency. Brit., Art. Geology. "The
fact of condensing around centers, however, indicates at
least differences in densitiea throughout the nebulous
maaa." See alao the article of Prof. Moulton referred to
above.

(c) This action can be better nnderatood by show-
ing it to be according to the law of pendulum vibration.

The force that would be exerted upon a ball falling
through the earth would be in proportion to the distance
yet to be traversed. The same is true of the pendulum.
In figure 2 place the pendulnm ball at any point as
at e. A part of the force of gravis acting along the line
e e would be expended in the pull upon the pendulum
rod. The remainder would be expended in urging it
along the tangent f g. This latter is as the angle a e c.
Bat this is = to the angle b a e, and this is the measure
of the distance yet to be passed through, the same as
that of the body falling through the earth.

(d) Abont eight months after this statement about
the Great Bed Spot was writt^ the following item wa^
going the round of the papers.

301

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

A C .D

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

GetMiu, Foundation for Science and B^igion 2Xa
Something Hovering Over Jupiter

"A dificoveiy of considerable imiwrtaDce in astrono-
mical circles has recently been made whieli is aroosing
much intereat among astronomers," aayb the Toronto
Oloie. "The planet Japiter is the body upon which the
discovery has been made. Several peculiar pyramid-
shaped spots have been observed on Jupiter, and the
astronomers who have been watching them have observed
that, as they travel with great velocity toward the object
known to astronomers as the Great Bed Spot, they disap-
pear and reappear at the other side of the Great Bed
Spot. Thie seems to indicate that the Great Bed Spot
is elevated, something which was not known before."

This seems to completely confirm the author's state-
ment

(e) The Ency. Brit., article Geology, mentions
three theories as to the internal condition of the earth.
First, solid crust, molten interior, 2d, with the exception
of local vesicular spaces, it is all solid, 3d, solid interior
and exterior with a layer of molten matter between.

With regard to internal fluidity Mr. Hopkins of Cam-
bridge, (in 1839) calculated that the phenomena of pre-
cession and nutation could not possibly be as fliey are if
the planet consisted of a central ocean of molten rock
surrounded by a crust 20 or 30 mileB thick, and that the
least possible thickness of crust consistent with the ex-
isting conditions or movements was from 800 to 1000
miles.

Sir William Thomson, the late Lord Kelvin, arrived Id-
dependently at the conclusion that the interior of the
earth must be solid. He estimated that the tide-produc-
ing forse of the nuMU and sun ezarta such a strain upon

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIf

204 OgnetU, Foundation for Science and BeUgion

tlw nbitaiice of the globe that it Menu in the highe«t
degree impoonble that the planet could maintain ita
ibape aa it does, onlen the aapposed cnut were at least
2,000 or 2,500 miles in tbicknesiL

Hia oondnsion is that the globe as a whole must be
of the tenacity of glass or steel to resist these forces.
In his own words bis conclusion is that the mass of the
earth, "is on the whole more rigid than a continaoas
solid globe of glass of the same diameter,"

This is pret^ good evidence of the correctness of m;
own oondnsion, arrived at simply by processes of reason.

(f) With r^iard to these transient bursts of light
note the words of the scientiBt, Dr. J. B. Meyer: "The
traoaient appearance of atars which in some cases, like
the celebrated star of T^cho Brahe, have at first an ex-
traordinary d^ree of brilliance, may satisfactorily be
explained by w^ming the falling together of previously
invisible double stars." (Correlation and Conservation
of Forces, page 355.)

(g) In speaking of species it is well to remember that
the term is s rather variable one. It is admitted that
some of the so-called species may have originated from
•ome other so-called species. The statement is simply
that there is no evidence that such has been the ease.

However hard it may be to conceive that each one of
the species, for instance, of the 700 of ganoids la an
original creation, and that the creation form is the ter-
minal one, there is no evidence diat there has heea a
single case of transmutation. However, it may be that
future discoveries may show that the term "variety"
should be used where the term "^)ecies" is now em-
ployed.

(h) The "sUn^ ooze" of Prof. Hnxl^, which he

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Genetis, Foundation for Science and Religion 205

thought was endued with power to produce all Idndg of
life either directly or indirectly, was finally discovered
to be but a precipitate that could be produced by simply
mixing alcohol with sea water.

(i) See E. Ray Lankester on Degeneration.

Closely connected with this subject of nebular densities
starting off on orbits of their own, is a consideration of
the seaquiplicate ratio of times and distances of Planets
or "Kepler's Third Law."

The sesquiplicate ratio of the times and distances of
the planets is necessary from the fact that the force of
gravitation varies as the square of the distance, and that
with falling bodies the distance is as the square of the
time. To demonstrate the law a few principles must be
admitted as axiomatic.

Ist. A body moving in a circle deviates from its
tangent accordit^ to the law of falling bodies.

2d. Any power of the ratio of two or more numbers
is the ratio of the same power of those numbers.

3d. The force of gravitation varies as the square of
the distance. In 6g. 2 (page 201) let S represent the posi-
tion oftion of the sun, M the position of one planet and A
that of a planet supposed for convenience to be just twice
as far from the sun. The ratio (r) of distances would then
b« 2. liSt d=diBtance of M from the sun and D=that
of A from the son. Let t=tbe time for M to pass from
M to P and T=the time for A to pass from A to C or
through % of its orbit.

As attraction varies as the square of the distance, it is
plain that the son exerts but ^ of the power at A that

L ,i,z<..t,CoogIc

306 0»tMi$, Foundation for 8tMne» and SelviM

it does at M and hence a body at A would fail, or b«
drawn from its tangent, only >^ as far in a given time
u one at M. At the same time it has twice as far to go
to complete the % of its orbit that M has. So, if ihero
were no other connderaUon, that is, if the distance fallen
through were as the time we should have the proportion
t : T : : 1 : r3. But the distance variea as the sqvare
of the time, so that instead of simply t and T we have t2
T2 and the proportion would become t2 : T2 : : 1 :
r3, where t2="t square" mid r3="r cube." This is
by far the most convenient formula to apply in prao>
tice. Tabe for example the time and distance of the
earth as a standard and we have only to multiply the
square of its time by the cube of the ratio of distances
and we have the square of the time of any other planet.

To obtain the ordinary formula of Kepler's Third Law
we have only to remanber the second principle stated
above and for 1 : r3 substitute the numbers themselves
and we have t2 : T2 : : d3 : D3. What is true of one
ratio is true of any ratio and what is true for ^ of the
orbit is true for the whole, so that the ratio of the times
and distances of the planets is necetsarily sesquiplioate.

It is sometimes stated that the taw is not quite true.
It is, however, necessarily and absolutely true of itself,
and would appear to be so if there were no disturbing
circumstances. If, for example, the solar system were
entirely isolated from other stellar bodies so as to be
undisturbed by them, the planets all of the same size
moving through a nonreeisting medium and in circular
orbits, or orbits of the same degree of eccentricity, there
could be no possibility of variation frcHU the harmonic
law.

In seeking the causes of variation frmn that law thj

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Qvnesit, Foundation for Science and Religion 207

writer found what he believes to be s trae law and the
principal cause of variation from the harmonic law.
Briefly stated it is this: A planet moving in an elliptical
orbit has a longer year than one at the tame mean dis-
tance would have moving in a circular orbit, or the
greater the ellipticity the longer the year in proportion
to ita mean distance.

It seems as if this must appear from the following
reasoning. In a circnlar orbit the mean distance is
simply one radius, — r, or for a convenience of com

4r
parison — Bat snppose a circle of the same size or eir-

4
emnference to be depresaed at two of its sides so as to
have a major and a minor axis. The major axis does
not lengthen as mnch as the minor axis shortens, for
when the nunor axis becomes zero the major axis has
become only ^ of the original circumference and th«
2itr

4r ,r

original — becomes 2 or — Clearing of

4 4

4
fractions the 4t of the circle becomes n r when the minor
axis has disappeared. But k* does not eqnal 4 but only
3.1416. The limit of possible variation then is between
4 and 3.1416. To maintain, then, the same mean distance
from the sun, the elliptical orbit must be lengthened as
eccentricity increases and as in a given time and at a
given distance the sun can produce only a given effect,
it would seem as if it must take longer to carry a planet
sronnd the longer elliptical orbit than around the shorter
circular one of the same mean distance.

:.bv Google

20S Oenetit, FomtdaHon for Sdenee and BeUgion

The writer of this paper arrived at this concliuton
vithoat knowii^; whether the years of the several plan-
ets were longer or shorter than repaired by the harmooie
law. He tried to ascertain these facts by correqwn-
dence, but failing in this, he applied himself to the taslE,
nsing Kepler's fnll fortnola and confirming some of the
results by nsing his own shorter one (t. «., t2 : T2 ; ;
1 : r3.) The resnlts sarprised and gratified him by oon<
firming his views in every partic^dar. Bnt before speak-
ing of these resolts we must refer for a moment to the
cause commonly attributed to account for the variation,
vis. the size of the planets. This will require but a
few words as it is treated in recent text books on astro-
nomy. But the only possible result of increasing size
would be to shorten Uie year. For instance, the actual
year of Japiter is 2.067 days shorter than it would be
if it were a mere particle. The earth's is 47.8 seconds
shorter.

It would se^n, then, that taking the time and distance
of the earth as a standard of comparison, all planets
larger than the earth should have a shorter year than
that required by the harmonic law, and from tiie preced-
ing conclusions as to the effect of elliptieity, all planets
whose orbits are more elliptical than the earth's should
have a longer year than required by the harmonic law.
'Which exerts the controUing infiuence can be learned by
calculation. Unless the writer of this paper is very maeh
mistaken in his own calculations and at the same time
fails to understand Newton 'a application of the law, ee-
centricity of orbit exerts the controlling influence, for
without exception all the planets whose orbits are more
eccentric than that of the earth have longer years than
required &y the karmonic law when the time and dietance

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Oenstit, PoundaHon for Soienee and SeUffian 209

of the earth ore taken as the itandta^ Tlie two wliOM
orbits are lew eccentric have shorter years than to re-
quired.

For convenience of present investigation the following
table is placed before the reader. It eontaina calculations
made hj the author four or five years ago with one or
two corrections made recently:

Mercury —

0,11S3

205618

7744

Vmins

>06833

60446

60688

w.,yn,

1.0000
0.1324

016770
083262

Standard
471969

Mam

470643

it.[iit«-

838.0342

948238

18771293

18713900

Rntnm

101.0637

[156996

116767081

116611778

nr

14.7889

946677

930692169

886600000

Nep.

24.6483

008719

3616266224

3812000000

The first two columns (mass and eccentricity) are
taken from Snell's Astronomy and differ a little from
those given by Prof. Young in his astronomy, but the
difference is too small to affect the general result.

About four years after malring the above calculations
the author had occasion to consult Newton's Principia
and from that takes, though in a different form, the fol-
lowing table. Mean distances of the planets and of the
earth from the son (omitting the three right hand fig-
ures) according to —

Harmonlo

Kepler Bnlllaldus law

Mercury 38806 38E8S 88710

Venus 72400 72398 72833

Earth 100000 100000 lOOOOO

Mara 153360 1B23E0 162869

Jupiter 619650 622620 620096

Batum 961000 964188 964006

Consnlting the first table we see that in every instance
-where the eccoitriei^ is greater than that of the earth's

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

210 Oenesii, PoundaUcn for Sdmcs and BaUgitm

orbit, tlie actual year is longer than required b? the H. L.
In the two instances (Venus and Neptune) where the
eccentricity is less than that of the earth 'a orbit, the
actual year ia shorter than is m> required.

With regard to the second— Newton's — table, Uranua
and Neptune were unknown to Newton and, of oonrse.
tliey are not mentioned. Then, too, instead of computing
the lime aa required by the H. L., as the present writer
did, he computed the stance as required by the aetoal
time, and, taking the distance as given by BuUialdus,
which is more nearly correct for Mercury, and that
given by Eepler, or botii, for the others, in every instance
his conclusions coincide with those in the first table. For
instance, the distance of Mercury calculated from its
actual year is greater than its actual distance, showing
that its actual year is longer than required by the H. L.
In the case of Venus the distance as computed from its
actual year is less than the actual distance, showing that
its actual year is less or shorter than required by the
H. li. As far as Newton's table goes it sustains in every
particular the correctness of the conelusians recorded in
the first table and both confirm the inference before
stated, (. 6., taking the time and distance of the earth as
a standard of comparison every planet whose orbit u
more eccentric ikon the eartk'a has a longer year than is
reqvired by the H. L. Those whose orints are leas eccon-
tric have shorter years than io required.

Of course the time and distance of any other planet
could be taken as the standard without affecting the
principles involved.

From the foregoing it will be seen that the exact effect
of eccentricity can be ascertained by sufficient accuracy
of computation. The author's calculations were mads

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

Gmwtis, Foundation for Science and Religion 211

for general resnlts or for finding the general principle,
and decimals were omitted, which might be required for
accurate resulta.

Bat it would require aaiy the fondamental rules of
arithmetic with that for square root for aucb computa-
tions. First ascertain the effect of size. (See Art. 436
and 417, Young's Qeneral Astronomy, Ed. of 1898.)
For instance, Jupiter's year is a trifle over 2 days shorter
than if it were a mere particle. The earth's is 47.8
seconds. These show the effects of sizes. Carry on the
computations for the other planets, then ascertain the
exact difference between the actual periods of the planets
and those required by the H. L. Add or subtract as tiie
ease requires and the result will he the effect of eccen-
tricity of orbit.

A very much easier way, however, to calculate the
effect of ellipticity is to calculate it from the difference
between the actual distance and that as calculated by
the harmonic law.

For instance, from Newton's table above take the
actual distance of Saturn, as given by Kepler, and sub-
tract this from the distance as Newton calculated it by
the H. L. and we have 954,006,000—951,000,000=
3,006,000 miles difference in distance. Multiply this by
3.1416 and we have 9,443,660 miles difference in length
of orbit. Divide this by its orbital velocity (6 miles per
second) and the result is that Satnm's year is, or would
be if Newton's data were correct, about 18 days loiter
than it would have been if its eccentricity had been only
equal to that of the earth. Of course the distances of
the planet« had not been ascertained in Newton's time
so accurately as at present, but the above is designed to

:.bv Google

212 OMtaiM, Foundation for Seiene^ and Religion

illoitrate the method and, approxiiaatelf, the effect of
eecentrieity in one instance.

Any one who chooses can carry ODt this method, but
for the present, at least, the author leaves the sabjeet
with these general results, and the su^eation before made
that the effect of eccentricity is manifested only as the
orbits have different degrees of eccentricity.

BZOUBSUSn

A few thoughts in connection with the condition of
the sun not ^pressed elsewhere may be admitted here.

Some astronomers have suggested that the beat of the
sun may be maintained by the continuous precipitation
ol matter upon its surface. A sufiScient answer to tiiat
view is that aiay increment to the son 's mass would oc-
casion a shortenii^ of the years of all of the planets.
For example, an accretion of ^ of its own mass would
shorten the year of Jupiter by more than a terrestrial
day while the variation of a few seconds would be notic-
able. Such s theory is not tenable.

Again, one astronomer asserts that the sun's contrac-
tion of 300 feet per year would supply all of the heat lost
by radiation. But first, this view presupposes an ex-
ternal force acting upon the sun from without, squeezing
the beat out as one would squeeze water from a sponge,
while the fact is that if there is ai^^ contraction at aU it
is the result and not the cause of a loss of heat

Again the amount of contraction would depend upon
the nature of the sun's substance and its capacity for
heat or specific heat. If, with the specific heat of water
it would contract 300 feet, with that of lead or bismuth
it would have to contract 9,000 feet, or at least it would

L, ,l,z<..t,C00gIf

OkuiU, Foundatum for Sdtnc* and BtUgion 213

have to reduce its temperatnre 30 and more timea as
mnch as it would were it of the specific heat of water.

Bat whether it would shrink at all or not as it gives
out beat depends upon the nature of its substance.
Water expands in cooling from 39 degrees to 32 and con-
tinues to expand as it is converted into ice. In the same
way bismuth expands through the whole process of cool-
ing.

It is not, however, necessary to suppose that the sun's
beat remains constant from age to age, but there is
reason to beUeve that the sun is not cooling off ao rapidly
as it would by radiation if there were no source of supply
of heat.

One of these sources of supply, which is at the same
time an evidence of the recency of creation, is suggested
in the following communicatioa to a local daily paper;

IS THS SUN COLD AND SOLIDt

Editor Sun: — Some years ago I published, in my
"Suborganie Evolution," the opinion that the body of
the sun is cold and solid. This conclusion was reached
by reasoning from fundamental principles. I have never
had occasion to change that opinion. On the contrary
that view is confirmed by more recent thoughts upon
phenomena connected with the sun. Farther than that,
we have reason to believe that it is composed of disso-
ciated elements, and that the flames on the sui'face of
that body are real fires occasioned by combustion, or
union of those simple elements.

The late Prof. Young of Princeton advanced the idea
that these flames might be produced by the recombina-
tion of gases that bad once been combined, and then

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

S14 G^nttit, Foundation for Smmot and Boligion

dissociated. Bat there is no reason to suppose that tliey
bad ever been combined before. Between 35 and 40 dis-
tinct simple elements have already been discovered in
the sun's photosphere. All we have to admit is that
oxygen, hydrogen, carbon or some other elements whidi
have a strong aflSnity for each other may exist in juxta-
position, mingled in varying quantities and purity. As
heat penetrates toward the interior and raises these to
the ignition point, all the varying phenomena of flames,
spicules, prominences, etc, would be produced.

At times immense qnantities of oxygon, hydrogen or
carbon may exist in juxtaposition with other non-com-
bnstible elements which retard combustion so that it pro-
ceeds slowly and so produces ordinary flames such as
seem to cover the most of the surface of the sun.

One astronomer observes: "''The appearance, wblcb
probably indicates a £act, is as if oountlesa jets of heated
gas were issuing through vents and spiracles over the
whole sorface, thus clothing it with flame which heaves
and tosses lihe the blaze of a conflagration, 'like a prairie
on flre.' " How can it be better accounted for than upon
the supposition that it is fire T At other times, instead of
the elements being so mingled as to produce ordinary
flame, thousands of cubic miles of o^gen, hydrogen, car-
bon or some other element may exist in proper propor-
tions to make an explosive compound which when ignited
would throw some of its own and superincumbent mate-
rial hundreds of thousands of miles above the surface.
Thus the "prominences" can easily be accounted for.
The cavities thus produced, together with the cooling and
downpour of this material, as well as other circum-
stances which we cannot stop to consider may account
for the principal phenomena in the sun's appearance.

U.,r,l,z<,.f,G00gIf

Cwwiw, fovndation for Svitnct and Btligion SIS

Prof. Young, referred to above, tiiouglit tliat the du-
sociation and recembination of these elements coold not
produce the higti temperature of the son. But, in the
Srst place, soch a process could not be expected to pro-
duce any great effect for, according to the principle of
the conservation of force, as much would be expended
in the process of the separation as would be given out by
their reuniting. In the second place, I have always been
skeptical as to the correctness of the speculations regard-
ing tiie sun's temperature. And this skepticism is not
diminished by the remarkable divergence of opinions in
regard to the matter; some placing the temperature as
high as 18,000,000 degrees, Fahrenheit, while others
place it as low as 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The union
of oxygen and hydrogen or of oxygen and carbon pro-
dnees a tanperature of about 5,000 degrees; that of
oxygen and acetylene gas between 6,000 degrees and
7,000 degrees, Fahrenheit. Other elements in the sun,
by their combinations, may produce still higher pyro-
metrical effects. Indeed, we can place no limits to the
possibilities of the sun in this regard.

Of course it is only the center or main body of the
son that is supposed, as Sir William Hershel supposed
it, to be cold and solid.

Another thoi^ht in this connection is that this com*
bnstion on the sun has not alwajn proceeded at the same
rate. At times it may have been rapid enough to have
produced a tropical temperature in the polar r^ons of
tiie earth. At other times it may have been slow enough
to produce the age of ice.

Still, these conditions of the earth probably have been
owing almost entirely to the geological and meteorol<^cal
condition of the earth and its atmoaqphere. It is an ex-

D,a,l,zc.bvG00gIe

216 Ownmia, WowiUMion for Seimut mud S§ligion

wioriiTigly mtcratitv (objeet and tut mneh more might
be uid in mpport of my viewi upon it, bat thii ii prob-
ably enoneh for this time. — A. L. Oridl^y. {Par§ont
DoOv Sun, Angurt 20, 1910.)

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

:.bv Google

»^e*^iErs"

m iDM Tn *

■

Coogic I

YB 72184

:.bv Google